The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC 04-01-98 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia APRIL 1, 1998 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) January 21, 1998 and February 18, 1998 Minutes ........................... A 2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................. B 3) Committee Reports ................................................. C 4) Citizen Comments ...... .................... . .... D PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #001-98 of Denise McClearen for an off -premise business sign along Front Royal Pike (Route 522 S.), identified with Property Identification Numbers 94A-1-2-6 thru 8. This off -premise sign is for a dog grooming business located at 4784 Front Royal Pike in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Mr.Ruddy)....................................................... E 6) Rezoning #004-98 of Central Coca Cola Bottling Co., submitted by Triad Engineering, Inc., to rezone 63.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District. This property is located west of the intersection of Shady Elm Road (Route 65 1) and Apple Valley Road (Rout 652), and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 63- A-58 and 63-A-59 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... F 7) Rezoning #005-98 of Linwood and Elizabeth Ritter, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 8.264 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located at 746 Double Church Road (Route 641), and is identified with Property Identification Number 86 -A -21B in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... G 2 8) Rezoning #006-98 of Borderline, L.L.C. (Broadway Electric Co.), submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 2.67 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District. This property is located on the south side of Airport Road (Route 645), 0.5 miles east of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), and is identified with Property Identification Number 64 -A -45F in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Ruddy) ....................................................... H PUBLIC MEETING 9) Request of Mr. E. Frank Smith for Variation from Subdivision Ordinance to enable a land division which exceeds the maximum lot depth ratio. This property is located on Marple Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 41-A-169 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (Mr. Lawrence) .................................................... I 10) Other 0: W GENDAS\98COVERS\PC4_ I.AGN MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 21, 1998. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice-ChairmanBack Creek District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; Marjorie H_ Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Sanitation Authority (SA) - 01/20/98 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the SA reviewed the new Opequon Water Reclamation Facility Inter -municipal Agreement. She said that a draft of the agreement was sent to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for their review and comments and the SA has reserved its approval until such time as the agreement is in final form. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the agreement is basically for the enlargement of the water treatment facility and sets forth who the recipients and payees are. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 156 Minutes of January 21, 1998 -2 - Winchester City Planning Commission - 01/21/98 Mtg. Mr. Ours reported that the Winchester City Planning Commission is working on the planned 64 - unit apartment complex, which will be built adjacent to the Orchard Hill development on Cedar Creek Grade; and yesterday, they reviewed the preliminary subdivision plan for the extension of Stoneleigh Drive. Mr. Ours stated that there is some controversy because this would be built next to an existing neighborhood and would share an ingress/egress with the existing development. Of interest to the County, he noted that a landowner adjacent to that property, who has land that would be in the county directly across the line, offered his land yesterday as a site for a potential road that could be built down to Cedar Creek Grade. Mr. Ours said that the City Planning Director, Tim Youmans, has had discussions with Frederick County Planning Director Kris Tierney. Mr. Ours said that the Commission also approved a 120-house/lot subdivision on Harvest Drive in Meadowbranch. He said that their final issue was the approval of rezoning to the new EIP (Education - Institution -Public) Use Zoning, which permits schools, fire and rescue stations, cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, etc. Mr. Ours said that the new zoning includes many buildings owned by the County, as well as several County - owned schools. Mr. Ours added that this could potentially become an issue with the future plans of the School Board to replace the Robinson Elementary School. PUBLIC HEARINGS Proposed Amendment to Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Sections 165-82.B, C, and D; Article IV, Section 165-48.7; and Article XXI, Section 165-145 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for "flex -tech" development within the B2, B3, and M1 Zoning Districts of Frederick County. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Eric Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, stated that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has been working on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would enable development proposals that include aspects of retail, manufacturing, wholesaling, and warehousing on a single site. Mr. Lawrence said that this development concept has been encouraged by the local development community and, in particular, the Winchester -Frederick County Industrial Parks Association (IPA). He added that the amendment has been termed "flex -tech" after its flexible nature and its ability to accommodate a range of permitted uses. Mr. Lawrence next reviewed the amendment with the Commission. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. John Good, Jr., representing the Shockey Companies, felt the overlay of the proposed requirements would effectively kill projects or put them in a mode of constantly asking for changes, and would cause those prospects to locate elsewhere. He had the following numerous concerns: the 20,000 square foot Frederick County Planning Commission Page 157 Minutes of January 21, 1998 SIE building limitation; the separation of automobile and truck traffic; the requirement for an approved master development plan; the requirement that loading bays not be visible from right-of-ways; the 120' rear yard setback; and that the zoning is to be determined by 75% of the establishment's use. Commissioner Morris, who is a member of the DRRS, said that the ideas of the IPA and a number of other business communities described themselves what they wanted to see in this ordinance. Mr. Moms stated that basically, the flex -tech is a cottage industry that has outgrown itself --somehow the building, the storing, and/or selling of the product could no longer occur in someone's garage. He said that flex -tech offers a reasonable place in the County to carry on an expanding business. A question was raised concerning the 20,000 square foot limitation. Mr. Lawrence said that it is not the overall size of the building that is being regulated, but the size of the particular units within the building. Mr. Tierney remarked that the proposed amendments allow a mix of uses which are not currently permitted in the ordinance. He said that the flex -tech amendment will allow a blending of uses and accommodate a use type that isn't currently accommodated in the ordinance. Mr. Tierney stressed that the statement that this will in some way kill deals, is absolutely unfounded. Members of the Commission had no objections to the proposal and endorsed the proposed amendments as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for flex -tech development within the B2, B3, and M1 Zoning Districts with the utilization of performance standards to guide appropriate development scale and design. Master Development Plan #008-97 for Autumn Wind Apartments by Greenway Engineering for the development of a 19 -acre tract, zoned RP (Residential Performance) and B2 (Business General) for 104 garden apartments with recreational amenities. This property is located on North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522 N.), 1/4 mile north of the Winchester City limits, and is identified with P.I.N. 53-A-60 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, said that this item was tabled from the Commission's December 17, 1997 meeting. Mr. Wyatt said that the master plan has been revised to consider the entire 19 -acre tract of land, including both the 9.24 -acre RP tract and the 9.82 -acre B2 tract; whereas, at the previous meeting, only the 9.2 -acre portion was considered. He pointed out that both tracts are vacant in use. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that at the December 17 meeting, the master plan did not conform to the County's density requirements or the environmental feature disturbance requirements. Subsequently, other alternatives Frederick County Planning Commission Page 158 Minutes of January 21, 1998 -4 - were discussed and pursued between the staff and applicant. He explained that those alternatives involved acquiring additional land, which permitted an overall gross density of 104 units; and revising the actual layout of the plan, which reduced disturbance of steep slopes from 50% to 16.6% and reduced the disturbance of woodlands from 61.5% to 18.5%. Mr. Wyatt said that the proposal now meets ordinance requirements regarding density and disturbance of environmental features. Mr. Wyatt reported that access is proposed to align with an existing crossover on Route 522. He said that the applicant has also proposed to provide a connection to the Adelphia Cable parking lot, which would eliminate U -turning movements for Adelphia Cable traffic exiting north. Mr. Wyatt added that since the applicant has incorporated the B2 portion of the property into this plan, the staff believes it is important that a narrative be added to the plan stating that the B2 tract is a part of the apartment complex. He said that it should not be allowed to be subdivided for other uses, such as another Adelphia Cable office or additional housing lots, etc. Mr. Mark Smith with Greenway Engineering, the design firm representing this master plan, requested that the narrative mentioned by the staff state that, "...the property could be subdivided if, upon review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, it was decided that the ordinances and the economic development in that area warranted it." Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Russell Hiett, adjoining property owner, was concerned about the surface water from the proposed apartments going into the drainage. He said that water on the other side of the hill comes down there also and has always been the source of a water problem. Commission members asked the staff for clarification on the narrative that was suggested to be placed on the master development plan concerning the B2 portion of the property. Mr. Wyatt explained that the project is at the maximum allowable density permitted under the ordinance for the 19 acres proposed. Mr. Wyatt said that the applicant is gaining the benefit of increased density by the additional 9.82 B2 acres, which are proposed for recreational amenities; therefore, the B2 acreage should not be permitted to be subdivided and/or sold for future development. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that if the applicant wanted to pursue additional recreational amenities for the benefit of the apartment complex, there would not be a problem with that; but the staff would not want to see the nine acres converted into two -acre lots. Commission members inquired how this would affect expansion of the existing Adelphia Cable Office building. Mr. Wyatt responded that the existing building is on Parcel 60A, which has been subdivided off of this parent tract; therefore, expansion of the building could occur as long as setback requirements were met. Members of the Commission also raised the subject of the proposed 50' dedication on the eastern boundary line for a future road and inquired how the applicant envisioned that road to be used. Mr. Smith explained that when they first began to look at this property and had discussions with the adjoining property owners, they learned that this is one of the only access points for both the National Fruit property and Mr. Jerry Smith's property. Mr. Smith said that since the road will be dedicated for public use by the County, he felt it prudent to have it on the books, so to speak, and have it available for that future use. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 159 Minutes of January 21, 1998 -5 - Commission members had no other issues of concern. They were in agreement with the statement to be placed on the master plan concerning the B2 tract, and were satisfied that all other requirements could be met. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #008-97 of Autumn Wind Apartments by Greenway Engineering for the development of a 19 -acre tract, zoned RP (Residential Performance) and B2 (Business General) for 104 garden apartments with recreational amenities. This recommendation for approval is granted provided that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors agrees with the results of the tree survey conducted by the design engineer and that all staff comments, review agency comments, Planning Commission comments, and Board of Supervisors comments are adequately addressed. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 1998-1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, presented the recommended draft of the 1998-1999 Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to the Planning Commission for discussion. Mr. Wyatt stated that the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) evaluated project requests provided by the Handley Regional Library, the Frederick County School Board, the Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation, the Regional Airport Authority, Frederick County Administration, and the Frederick County Public Works Department, and the end result is that 25 projects are proposed, of which five are new. Mr. Wyatt summarized the projects for the Commission. Commissioner Morris stated that members of the Planning Commission in Frederick County are fortunate to be able to review this document. He felt it was a real tribute to the County that the CIP is evaluated in terms of its comprehensive planning effort and that this was not the case everywhere in the State of Virginia. He pointed out that although the Planning Commission does not have budgetary authority for approval of the dollar amounts, the Commission does have an obligation to review the items in light of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, Mr. Morris inquired about whether or not the regional airport projects, which included the expansion of roadways, runways, and development specifically associated with the acquisition of land and construction in the airport area, fit within the County's overall plans for that area. Mr. Wyatt responded that the Airport Support Area, within the Comprehensive Plan, contains statements of intent about protecting the integrity of the airport and its need to grow and expand. Mr. Wyatt confirmed that the proposed projects do indeed conform with the County's overall plan. Chairman DeHaven instructed the staff to proceed with arrangements for a public hearing on February 4, 1998. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 160 Minutes of January 21, 1998 M OTHER ITEMS Mr. Tierney presented a tentative agenda for the Planning Commission's annual retreat scheduled for February 7, 1998. Mr. Tierney brought the Commission's attention to the last page which contained a list of projects that staff feels are priority work items for the upcoming year and he requested the Commission's input on that list. Mr. Tierney also asked for the Commission's input on scheduling a worksession with the Board of Supervisors and the consultants on the I-81 Study. Mr. Tierney said that a tentative date has been set for the Board's second meeting in February, which is the 25th. ADJOURNMENT 8:00 p.m. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned by unanimous vote at Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Page 161 Minutes of January 21, 1998 C� • i MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on February 18, 1998. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John R Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back Creek District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, 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. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 1997 & DECEMBER 17 1997 Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine, the minutes of December 3, 1997 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the minutes of December 17, 1997 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 156 Minutes of February 18, 1998 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 01/29/98 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed design standards and this will be the committee's topic of discussion for the next several meetings. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 02/09/98 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPS discussed work items for the next several months, which involves land use in the southeast part of the County. Transportation Committee - 02/03/98 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the 1998 Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan which will be forwarded to the Commission later in the meeting. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 02/17/98 Mtg. Mr. Moms reported that the HRAB reviewed and discussed three items at their meeting: the first was the rezoning of approximately three acres of land from RA to B2 in the Albin area and this was considered in light of the viewshed from Longreen Estate; the second review was for the potential rezoning of 95 acres at Carriebrook, located at the intersection of Routes 37 and 642, which contains Civil War redoubts; and finally, the HRAB reviewed a rezoning request for 63 acres from RA to M1 adjacent to the GE Plant on Apple Valley Road for a potential site for the Coca-Cola Company, and this was discussed in light of the Kernstown viewshed. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 02/17/98 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that Mr. Jones, the Director of the SA, brought everyone up-to-date on how water and sewer would be extended to supply the Cardinal Glass plant, if it should come to this area. Mrs. Copenhaver said that if the glass plant comes to this area, they anticipate the construction of a 750,000 gallon water tank on theproperty. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 157 Minutes of February 18, 1998 -3 - Winchester City Planning Commission (WPCI - 02/17/98 Mtg. Mr. Ours reported that the major issue before the WPC has been the Summerfield Luxury Apartments, which would be built adjacent to the Orchard Hill development on Cedar Creek Road, and the WPC gave their final subdivision approval. Mr. Ours said that the WPC also granted final subdivision approval to subdivide three parcels on Pleasant Valley Road for the new Lowe's store and also approved a text amendment to the sign ordinance which increases the size of signs allowed along the I-81 corridor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #019-97 of Denise McClearen for a cottage occupation to operate a dog grooming business. This property is located at 4784 Front Royal Pike and is identified with P.I.N.s 94A-1-11-4 through 94A-1-11-9 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, reported that the various reviewing agencies presented no overall objections to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Mr. Ruddy said that staff believed this cottage occupation would not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, taking into consideration the existing Wishing Well facility and upon considering the scale of the proposed dog grooming business, the proposal will clearly be incidental to the existing residence. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that a zoning violation did exist on the property with regards to the structure being built across numerous lots; however, in the months since the application was brought before the Commission, that violation has been resolved by the applicant. Mr. Ruddy suggested that staff recommendation #2 be eliminated, as it would no longer be necessary. There were no citizen comments. The applicant was available for questions. No 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 unanimously approve Conditional Use Permit 4019-97 of Denise McClearen for a cottage occupation to operate a dog grooming business at 4784 Front Royal Pike with the following conditions: All review agency comments will be complied with at all times. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 158 Minutes of February 18, 1998 -4- 2. Sufficient parking shall be provided to accommodate customer's vehicles. No dogs will be permitted to be boarded on the property overnight. 1998-1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR FREDERICK COUNTY Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, presented the recommended 1998-1999 Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. Mr. Wyatt explained that the purpose of the CIP is to provide the Board of Supervisors with information regarding the capital facilities needs of the County's various departments and agencies, to create an advisory document that can be utilized as a budgetary tool during the Board's annual budget process, and to provide an opportunity for the County to realize development proffers for capital projects. Mr. Wyatt summarized the projects and costs for the Commission using a slide presentation. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following person came forward: Ms. Jeannie Brown, President of the Parent -to -Parent Group of the Winchester area, which is a group of parents with special -needs children, requested that the Planning Commission consider alternatives to the $2.5 million NREP addition proposed in the CIP. Ms. Brown suggested that the pre-school, severely and profoundly disabled students be kept in their own school districts and in the least restrictive environment. She felt the money could be put to better use if a classroom was added to the schools the children would be going to and this would reduce the number of new classrooms needed at NREP. Ms. Brown felt that NREP improvements need to be made, however, their children also needed to be in their own home school districts. Mr. Thomas R. Malcolm, Frederick County School System Superintendent, stated that the School Board has considered the suggestions of the Parent -to -Parent Group and has decided that they will not pursue expansion to NREP; but will, over a period of time, remove those students who are currently housed at NREP who could be housed back in the home schools adequately, comfortably, and appropriately, and serve those students at the home schools. Mr. Malcolm reiterated that Item #3 on the CIP list has been removed by the School System in pursuit of another avenue for the NREP building. Commissioner Light stated that he has been an opponent of this particular planning document (CIP) for several years, not because he felt any of the projects were not warranted, but rather by the manner in which it was presented and planned. Mr. Light questioned how projects were designated on the plan and he offered a couple of perspectives. Mr. Light said that he understood that the proffer program was based on the dollar amounts in the CIP. To illustrate, he pointed out that the Parks & Recreation Department represented 12 projects or 42% of the total dollars in the CIP, creating a high percentage base within the CIP; which in turn, directly affected the Parks & Recreation Department in the total dollars of the proffer program. Mr. Light felt that if Parks & Recreation represented 2% of the County's total budget, then they should represent 2% of the CIP. He argued that the CIP should not throw off the perspective amount of money that developers are proffering because their percentage of the CIP is greater. Commissioner Light also believed that because of the large amount of money represented in the CIP, there needed to be a separate committee, represented by administration, Frederick County Planning Commission Page 159 Minutes of February 18, 1998 -5 - Planning, the Board, and other departments, to examine proposed expenditures and a process whereby the individuals involved could voice their opinions as projects are studied. Commissioner Light said that he was being asked to participate in a plan that he was not certain was the best value for the tax dollars in the County. Mr. Light concluded that he felt very strongly about this and believed it needed to be examined further. Commissioner Light's views on the CIP were not shared by all members of the Commission, however. One member pointed out that some departments, such as Parks & Recreation, charge users fees, so their operating costs may not all come out of the County's budget. Other members held the view that the CIP came before the Commission primarily for review in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, not so much for the financial review. Regarding the Impact Model, Mr. Tierney explained that various departments, such as the School System or Parks & Recreation, are not in competition for the same dollar. Mr. Tierney said that although there may be more projects from a particular department, it doesn't hurt another department when it comes to the way the proffers are calculated. The general consensus was for support of the CIP as presented and upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the 1998-1999 Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan with the deletion of Item #3, the NREP Addition, by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Morris, Copenhaver, DeHaven, Wilson, Romine, Thomas, Ours, Stone NO: Light Subdivision Application #004-98 of Mark and Rachelle Repine for the subdivision of a 1.3719 -acre tract, zoned RP, into three lots. This property is located at the eastern portion of Idylwood Drive in the existing Heritage Hills subdivision (Rt. 1238) and is identified with P.I.N. 54-3-1A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Eric Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, stated that Idylwood Drive currently does not end in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Lawrence said that the proposal is to extend Idylwood Drive into this 1.3719 acres, cul-de- sac Idylwood Drive, and create three single-family detached traditional lots off of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the design engineers for the project, said that he met with VDOT on the site and all requirements will be met, water lines will be extended for fire hydrant placement, and any other utilities required will also be extended. There were no citizen comments. No issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 160 Minutes of February 18, 1998 -6 - Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Application #004-98 of Mark and Rachelle Repine for the subdivision of a 1.3719 -acre tract into three single-family traditional lots. Subdivision Application #015-97 of the Wythe Avenue Extension by Greenway Engineering, Inc, to subdivide a 1.4065 -acre tract, zoned RP, into four lots. This property is located at the end of the existing Wythe Avenue in Stephens City and is identified with P.I.N. 75-A-65 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval w/ No Entrances Onto Caroline Avenue Mr. Eric Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, stated that Wythe Avenue does not currently end in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Lawrence said that the proposal is to extend Wythe Avenue into the 1.4065 -acre tract, cul-de- sac Wythe Avenue, and create four single-family detached traditional lots off of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Mark Smith with Greenway Engineering, Inc., the design engineers for the project, stated that this will be a 80' extension for the installation of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Smith said there were no outstanding issues from any of the review agencies. Chairman DeHaven called for public continent and the following person came forward to speak: Ms. Vivian A. Gill, adjoining property owner at 217 Wythe Avenue, spoke with the Commission concerning a standing water problem she has been experiencing against her house in her side yard. She explained that the drainage ditch in front of her home is not taking the water and the ditch remains dry. Ms. Gill said that she was not opposed to the construction of additional homes, as long as something was done to correct her water problem. Mr. Smith responded to the property owner's concerns and stated that the Public Works/ Engineering Department will require the submission of detailed grading and drainage plans prior to lot construction and this should alleviate the problems. Members of the Planning Commission were concerned about the access of two lots, Lot 4 and Lot 3, on Caroline Avenue because of traffic safety. Members of the Commission pointed out that Caroline Avenue serves as a major ingress/egress for Fredericktowne, Fredericktowne Estates, and Albin Village, and is a very busy, dangerous area. The consensus of the Commission was that they would not support the subdivision if any lots were to access Caroline Avenue for the reasons mentioned. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Application #015-97 of the Wythe Avenue Extension submitted by Greenway Frederick County Planning Commission Page 161 Minutes of February 18, 1998 -7 - Engineering, Inc. for the subdivision of a 1.4065 -acre tract into four single-family traditional lots with the following change: No entrance from arty lots onto Caroline Avenue will be allowed. Proposed 1998 Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan. The purpose of the plan is to advise the Commonwealth Transportation Board of the funding priorities for the Primary Road System in Frederick County. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, presented the 1998 Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Ruddy stated that the purpose of the plan is to advise the Commonwealth Transportation Board of the funding priorities for the Primary Road System for Frederick County. He said that Frederick County representatives will be attending the 1998 Pre -allocation Hearing on April 3, 1998 at the Augusta County Government Center to present the plan to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Ruddy explained that the plan maintains the same priorities that were presented in the 1997 plan; however, the Route 11 South project has been revised to reflect the recommendations of the Winchester Area Transportation Study, and upon recommendation of the Transportation Committee, the Route 277 project has been broken into two segments. Mr. Ruddy further stated that this year's plan continues to focus on the development of a new limited access corridor, Route 37, and improvements to existing major and minor arterial systems within the County's urban development area. Mr. Ruddy next proceeded to review each of the priorities with the Commission. There were no public comments. No issues of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 1998 Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan as presented by the Transportation Committee. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Chairman DeHaven appointed Mr. George L. Romine to serve another term on the Economic Development Commission and he also appointed Terry Stone as the alternate member. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 162 Minutes of February 18, 1998 ADJOURNMENT 8:00 p.m. -8 - No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned by unanimous vote at Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director Charles S_ DeHaven, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Page 163 Minutes of February 18, 1998 BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed March 19, 1998) 1 n newly APPicati o ewl submitted. fled. REZONING: Location: West of the Shady Elm Rd. (Rt. 651) & Apple Valley Rd. (Rt. 652) intersection Submitted: 03/06/98 PC Review: 04/01/98 BOS Review: 04/22/98 - tentatively scheduled Briarwood Estates (REZ #003-98) Stonewall 50.53 ac. from RA to RP for 143 single-family homes II Lova- ien: I Evict side of Greenwood Rd. (Rt. 652) betwn Valley Mill Rd. (Rt. 659) & Senseny Rd. (Rt. 657); adjoins existing Briarwood Est. & Carlisle Heights. Submitted: 02/10/98 PC Review: 03/04/98 - recommended approval BOS Review: 04/08/98 Tasker Rd. & Warrior Rd. Commercial (REZ #002-98) Opequon 38.1979 acres from RP to B2 for retail use Location: Intersection of relocated Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642) & proposed Warrior Rd. & approx. 1,000' west of the Tasker & Warrior Rd intersection, along the north side of Tasker Rd. Submitted: 02/10/98 PC Review: 03/04/98 - recommended approval BOS Review: 04/08/98 Eastgate Commerce Center (REZ #001-98) Shawnee 82.1237 acres from RA to Ml for 1 industrial use Location: South of relocated Tasker Dr. (Rt. 642) & west of Front Royal Pk. (Rt. 522 So.) Submitted: 02/06/98 PC Review: 03/04/98 - recommended approval BOS Review: 04/08/98 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Autumn Wind Apartments (MDP #008-97) Gainesboro 104 Garden Apts. on 19.04 ac. (RP/B2) Location: No. Frederick Pk. (Rt. 522N); 1/4 mi. north of Winchester City Limits, behind Adelphia Cable Office Submitted: 11/24/97 PC Review: 12/17/97 - tabled for 30 days to 01/21/98; 01/21/98 - rec. approval BOS Review: 02/11/98 - denied; 03/03/98 - approved Admin. Approved: 03/06/98 Westridge III (MDP #006-97) Back Creek 19 S.F. Detached Urban Residential Lots on 9.81 ac. (RP) Location: Adjacent to the Westridge Subd. (Sec. I & II) w/ access from West View Lane via Middle Road (Rt. 628) in the city. Submitted:09/22/97 PC Review: 15/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 12/97 -approved [03112/98 Admin. Approved: SUBDIVISIONS: Signal Station Associates (SUB #005-98) NO MDP Back Creek I 2 Lot Subdivision: Lot IA - 0.9263 ac. I Lot 1B - 2.1502 ac. (B2) Location: Rt. 50 W.; two miles from Winchester hospital Submitted: 02/10/98 PC Review: 03/18/98 - recommended approval BOS Review: 04/08/98 - tentatively scheduled Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Mark & Rachelle Repine (SUB #004-98) NO MDP Shawnee Subdivision of 1.3719 ac. into 3 s.f. lots I (RP) Location: 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 Woodbrook Village (SUB#016-97) Back Creek 81 multi- lex lots on 19.56 ac. (RP) Location: So. side of Opequon Church Lane (Rt. 706) Submitted: 12/02/97 MDP #004-97: MDP approved by BOS 09/24/97; Admin. approved 12/10/97 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Wythe Ave. Ext. (SUB #015-97) No MDP Opequou 4 S.F. lots on 1.4065 ac. (RP) Location: End of existingWythe Ave. in Stephens City Submitted: 11/20/97 PC Review: 02/18/98 - rec. approval w/ no entrances onto Caroline Ave. BOS Review: 03/11/98 - approved; back to BOS for clarification 03/25/98 Admin. Approved: Pending Chapel Hill Subdivision (SUB #014-97) Shawnee 134 S.F. Det. Urban Lots on 14.4214 cres (RP) Location: East side of Rt. 522, 0.15 mi. south of Lon croft Rd. (Rt. 785) Submitted: 10/30/97 MDP #006-96: Approved by BOS 08/14/96; Admin. Approved on 09/17/96 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Dr. Raymond L. Fish (SUB #012-97) Stonewall Subdivision of one lot (1.4962 ac.) (132) off a 16.00 ac. parent tract (B2 & B3) Location: Hopewell Rd. & new proposed street, Clearbrook Ln; 160' NW of existing Winchester & Western 60' right-of-way Submitted: 10/09/97 MDP #005-95: Approved by BOS on 01/24/96; Admin. Approved on 07/15/96 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Briarwood Estates (SUB #011-97) Stonewall Subdivision of 9.79 acres for 20 S.F. Det. Traditional Lots (RP) Location: East side of Greenwood Rd.(Rt. 656) Submitted: 09/26/97 (Replaces Subdiv. #001-94) MDP #005-93 Approved by BOS on 12/8/93 Subd. Admin. Approved: 1, Pending Star Fort, Sect. II (SUB #010-97) Stonewall Subdivision of 11.6182 ac. for 26 s.f. detached traditional lots Location: U.S. Rt. 522 and VA Rt. 832 Submitted: 09/16/97 MDP #004-94 Approved by BOS 09/14/94; Admin. Approved 04/10/95 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall Indust. Pk. (SUB #007-97) Gainesboro Subdivision of a 2.6584 ac. lot (MI) Location: McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); approx. 1,000' from Tyson Dr. intersection Submitted: 07/28/97 MDP #006-93 Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97) Stonewall 75 s.f. zero lot line lots on 20.278 ac. (RP) Location: So. west comer 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: Pending Lenoir City Co. of Virginia (SUB #003-97) Gainesboro 1 MI Lot (2.000 acres) Location: Stonewall Industrial Pk.; McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861), approx. 700' west of the McGhee Rd. and Tyson Dr. intersection. Submitted: 05/15/97 MDP #006-93: Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93 Admin. Approved: Pending Winc-Fred Co. 1DC (SUB) -7 Back Creek 2 MI Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres) Location: Southeast side of Development Lane Submitted: 09/08/95 I MDP #003-87: Approved b BOS 07/08/87; Admin. Approved 06/08/88 PendingAdmin. Approval Awaitingsigned lats. RT&T Partnership (SUB) Back Creek 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2) Location: Valle Pike (Rt. 11 So.) Submitted: 05/ 17/95 MDP /1003-91 Approved by BOS 07/10/91; Admin. Approved 09/03/91 Pending Admin. Approval: AwaitinE submission of signed plat & deed of dedication Abrams Point, Phase I (SUB) Shawnee .30 SF Cluster & Urban Lots (RP) Location: South side of Rt. 659 Submitted: 05/02/90 PC Review: 06/06/90 - recommended approval BOS Review: 06/13/90 - a roved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat Harry Stimpson (SUB) O uon 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: Location: No.West corner of the Rt. 38/I-81 intersection Submitted: 03/09/98 Approved: Pending 0 Fellowship Bible Church (SP #013-98) Back Creek overflow parking - 111 additional standard & 5 addit. handicap. (RA) Location: Intersection of Middle Rd. & Apple Valley Rd. Submitted: 03/02/98 Approved: Pending Northwestern Workshop (SP #012-98) Stonewall -7 6,000 s.f. addit. to existing bldg. for mfg. use on 6.072 ac. site (Ml) Location: 828 Smithfield Avenue Submitted: 02/24/98 Approved: pending All Points Warehousing East (SP #011-98) Stonewall Mini -storage on 3.035 ac. (Ml) Location: 209 Cole Lane Submitted: 02/18/98 Approved: Pending 11 Autumn Wind Apts. (SP #010-98) Gainesboro Garden apartments on 7.3 ac. of a 19.06 ac. tract (RP/B2) Location: Rt. 522N., 0.8+ mi. southeast of Rt. 37, behind Adelphia Cable Co. Submitted: 02/02/98 Approved: Pending Furlong's Sheet Metal (SP #009-98) Stonewall 1,944 sq.ft. bldg. addit. for air condi- ioning sales/service; 0.5830 ac. site (B2) Location: 776 Baker Lane Submitted: 02/10/98 Approved: Pending Fleet Maintenance (SP #008-98) Gainesboro Warehousing (self -storage) on 5 acres 1 (133) Commercial bldg. additions on 0.5 ac. of a 4.8333 ac. site (MI) Location: Stonewall Industrial Park; 259 Tyson Drive Submitted: 02/10/98 Approved: Pending White Properties at Eastgate Commerce Cntr. (SP #007-98) 1 Shawnee Warehousing (self -storage) on 5 acres 1 (133) Location: Corner of proposed Rainville Rd. & Tasker Dr. (Rt. 642) Submitted: 02/02/98 Approved: Pending Westminster -Canterbury (SP 006-98) 1 Gainesboro 48 -unit assisted living facility; 1.6 ac. disturbed on a 49.35 ac. parcel (RP) Location: 7-71 300 Westminster Drive Submitted: 01/29/98 Approved: Pending DMK Properties (SP #005-98) Shawnee District 15,135 s.f. office bldg. on 4.0 acres for general office use (MI) Location: Independence Drive; Lot 6, Westview Business Center Submitted: 01/13/98 Approved: Pending Pack It Inn Mini Storage Warehouse (SP #004-98) Stonewall Self -Storage facility; 3 ac. disturbed on a 3.1083 ac. site (MI) Location: Baker Lane Industrial Park, Lot 13 Submitted: 01/09/98 Approved: Pending 10 Insulated Bldg. Systems (SP #003-98) Stonewall 50' X 100' lean-to addition to existing facility (Ml) Location: 326 McGhee Road Submitted: 01/09/98 Approved: Pending Biomedical Prod. & Serv. 2-98) Back Creek Office & Processing Facility; 2.0 ac. disturbed on 3.204 ac. site (Ml) n: [Aroved: 110-A Industrial Drive ted: 01/05/98 Approved: Pending Container (SP #001-98) Stonewall District Parking Lot; 0.2 ac. Disturbed on a 89.6 ac. Site (Ml) VAroved: Ft. Collier Industrial Park : 01/06/98 Approved: Pending Middletown Elementary School Addition (SP #047-97) Opequon 2+ disturbed ac. on a 15.0 ac. site (RA) Location: 190 Mustang Lane Submitted: 11/18/97 Approved: 03/06/98 Valley Cycle Center (SP #033-97) Shawnee 16,000 s.f. bldg. for retail sales; 2 ac. disturbed on a 2.0579 ac. site (112) Location: Westview Business Center; Lot A; Approx. 2 miles east of I-81 on Rt. 50 at Independence Drive Submitted: 09/23/97 Approved: Pending 11 Dr. Fairman Veterinary Office (SP #029-97) Stonewall 4,272 sq ft Veterinary Office on 1.4962 1 ac. parcel (B2) Location. 1092 Hopewell Road Submitted: 07/25/97 Approved: Pending Mobil-Wendys Rt. 50W Conven. Center (SP #026-97) Back Creek Gas-Conven. Cntr.; 3,783 sq ft floor area; 1.072 ac. site disturbed (RA) Location: Rt. 50 West Submitted: 07/23/97 Approved: Pending Ellis Self -Storage (SP #024-97) Stonewall 3 additional self -storage bldgs; 9.211 ac. parcel disturbed; (Ml) Location: Intersection of Routes 761 & 664 Submitted: 07/03/97 Approved: Pendin Agape Christian Fellowship Church Sanctuary (SP #005-97) Shawnee Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA) Location: East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/I-81 Interch . Submitted: 02/12/97 Approved: Pending Shenandoah Bldg. Supply (SP #056-96) Gainesboro Warehouse on 5 acres (M1) Location: 195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park) Submitted: 12/16/96 Approved: Pending 12 Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube Service (SP #030-96) Opequon Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive - Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2) Location: 152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red A le Country Store) Submitted: 07/03/96 A roved: Pending AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP #022-96) Stonewall Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a 0.916 acre parcel (RA) Location: E3548Nortdhiederick Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 A roved: Pending American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 acre site (132) Location: 1730 Berryville Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Pending D.K. Erectors & Maintenance, Inc. (SP #051-95) Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on a 10 - acre site (M2) Location: 4530 Northwestem Pike Submitted: 12/28/95 Approved: Pending Wheatlands Wastewater Facility (SP #047-89) Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (R5) Location: So -West of Double Toll ate; adj. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: [Being held atapplicant's request. 13 Flex Tech (SP #057-90) Stonewall I MI Use on 11 Ac. (M1) Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Being held atapplicant's request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Shenandoah Mobile Co./ Parkins Mills (CUP #024-97) Shawnee 1 commercial telecommunications 1 facilities (RA) Location: Knight Drive (private gravel road), off Rt. 642 Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of monopole tower w/ conditions and waiver of setbacks BOS Review: 01/28/98; Tabled until 03/11/98; 03/11/98 - tabled until 04/08/98 Shenandoah Mobile Co./ Sherando (CUP #023-97) Opequon commercial telecommunications 1 facilities (RA) Location: 0.25 mi. off Rt. 636, 0.4 mi. from Rt. 636/277 intersection Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of monopole tower w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/28/98; Tabled until 03/11/98; 03/11/98 - tabled unti104/08/98 14 Shenandoah Mobile Co./ Hunting Ridge (CUP #022-97) Back Creek commercial telecommunications facilities (RA) Location: 0.5 mi. on Turtle Meadow Drive from Rt. 616 Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of lattice tower w/ conditions BOS Review: J 01/28/98; Tabled until 03/11/98; 03/11/98 - tabled until 04/08/98 Shenandoah Mobile Co./ Little Timber Ride (CUP #021-97) Back Creek commercial telecommunications facilities (RA) Location: 0.38 miles off of Rt. 610 Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of monopole tower (Option#1) w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/28/98; Tabled until 03/11/98; 03/11/98 - tabled until 04/08/98 Shenandoah Mobile Co./ Bowling Green Ridge (CUP #020-97) Gainesboro commercial telecommunications facilities (RA) Location: 0.13 miles off Rt. 688 Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of monopole tower w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/28/98; Tabled until 03/11/98; 03/11/98 - tabled until 04/08/98 T. P. & Susan Goodman Stonewall Social Center, Outdoor Recreation (CUP #010-97) Center, Catered Functions, Tours, Meetings, Etc. (RA) Location: 534 Redbud Road Submitted: 06/09/97 PC Review: 09/03/97 - recommended approval with conditions BOS Review: 10/07/97 tabled until 11/12/97; 11/12/97 - temporary approval until 12/31/97; subject to renewal and/or disposition on 01/14/98; 01/14/98 - tabled for 60 days to 03/11/98; 03/11/98 - tabled until 04/08/98 15 VARIANCES: MM&O Partnership (VAR #003-98) Stonewall (M2 Zoning) 1.71' side yd & a 21.82' rear yd var. for equipment/materia] storage bldg. Location: 812 North Kent St. (beside Plumly Lumber Corp.) Submitted: 02/03/98 BZA Review: 03/17/98 - approved 1.11' side yd. & 15' rear yd. B -K Office Supply (VAR #002-98) (Dororty Moffett) Stonewall (133) 40' reduction in buffer distance - south; 1 45' reduction in buffer distance - west Location: East of Rt. 11 North; next to Preston I. Moffett Distribution Co. Submitted: 02/05/98 BZA Review: 03/17/98 - approved w/ condition that full -screen requirements of the Frederick Co. Code are complied with. 16 PC REVIEW: 04/01/98 BOS REVIEW: 04/22/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #001-98 PUPPY PARADISE Off -Premise Business Sign for Denise McClearen's Cottage Occupation - Dog Grooming Business LOCATION: This property is located approximately two miles south of Dinosaur Land on Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 South), on the north side of the Wishing Well Gift Shop. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 94A-1-2-6 thru 8 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential, Vacant, and Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Off -premise business sign REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Trans vortation: In accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, no private advertisement sign can be placed on the State's right-of-way. Prior to erection on private property, a permit may have to be applied for through our District Office in Staunton. You may do so by contacting Mr. Larry Curry at (540) 332-9098. Inspections Departrnent: Sign shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, Use Group U (Utility) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996. Please submit detailed plan at the time of building permit application. Fire Marshal: No comment. Denise McClearen CUP #001-98 Page 2 March 19, 1998 Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to the proposed sign. Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority: No continent. Planning and Zoning: Background The applicant recently received approval for a Cottage Occupation for a pet grooming business. The property on which this business is located is identified with P. I.N. 94A -1-11-4A on the accompanying location map. The applicant also owns property with a frontage along Route 522. It is on this property that she wishes to erect an off -premise business sign advertising her business. Comments. The Zoning Ordinance states that signs that advertise a business that is not located on the same lot or parcel as the business sign shall be considered `off -premise business signs.' Off - premise business signs are permitted in the RA zoning district with an approved conditional use permit. The applicant originally requested a four square foot sign as permitted with an approved CUP for a Cottage Occupation. However, this request was amended to two square feet after the applicant was made aware of the additional requirements placed upon signs located along Federal "A" Primary Highways by the Virginia Department of Transportation. A two square foot sign is the maximum permitted by VDOT for an off-prenuse sign along a highway of this classification. County sign regulations dictate that the sign shall be setback at least 10 feet from any property line or road right-of-way. In addition, the sign must be at least 50 feet from any other business sign. It is staff's opinion that the proposed sign, in the location shown on the accompanying plat, complies with the above regulations and would not detract from surrounding properties and uses. Staff Recommendation for 4-1-98 Planning Commission Meeting: Approval with the following conditions: Review agency comments must be complied with at all times. 2. If the business being advertised ceases operation, the sign must be removed. O:IAGENDAS\COMMENTS\�%ICCL E RN2.CL'P Zoning Legend CUP #001-98 (All Zoning on Denise McClearen (Puppy Paradise) this map is RA) PIN: 94A-1-2-6 thru 8 This Map was produced by Frederick Co. Planning & Development 03-13-98 Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA I. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: Qe-2_Sy MCO%�/� ADDRESS: . 0 6 cy /,Iq TELEPHONE (,no) o) - ? & y- 6 S/ 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: erl S� rC C/!�� 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) :41 4. The property depth of has a road feet (Please be exact) frontage of feet and a and consists of .12Y acres. 5. The property is owned by ACk 4"A bwnia // / " '/�ip`lten evidenced by deed from E u;, .4,101 ,,;A, as I cG.f n s recorded in deed book no. (previous ow er) on page /w L as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. / 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 9`114 C C)OI CCz 6 _jf�`,�� I Magisterial District C1 q u pAJ Current Zoning W: 7. Adjoining Property: "_'Y' USE ZONING North � East rte' South `4 c, Wes C. 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) r OF�'P2EM I� E Bu 5/ NESS SlC, N �oR GoTriq-,� E ,5 "fps 2'E Mcc r 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be, constructed: /(/oy� 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides.and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME � t ft -N 7`v�,�/�,�. ADDRESS Myr PROPERTY ID#_ gyp � /// p �a1d �,h/ A "0o sr vR M �-a- 6 6 3 NAME te- 4,OA}+,,\ .... ADDRESS WSZ PROPERTY ID# 94M CM -0143 ory/a L�-tli}t NAME �Q! l Ile , /1VC1-;,1 n" ADDRESS _V 77V cr, t fro u�,Ll �l PROPERTY ID# ` V /`t c"z---a /o / o-cv cx, h J 'k NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 12 . Additional � comments, if any: _i: C.L�O j Li Lt � S� 4k,S G' A _ �- q �-„ it .,,, . , / _ _1 LSUA F 2 91 V.4.�� 1L- res FEQ I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. 1 understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner F � Owners' Mailing Address 4k% 47 Owners' Telephone No. -57 (1 - f TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: 11 E! 3 1 o E:�: �_ � I- 12 12 G�A / , f- T/ / 1i A A , ,ITE , Y, .,L_,,, -I, N J4 JO" O" E jog. Go- ---- FS ao.a _ V1 STORY BRICK & FRAME 1273 1J.3 a o s� 'i, I RES/DENCE " COt"EREO 274' a t. JS.J e re J" BASEMENT I; I PCWC7/ ENTRY TJ T •FRAME 77?T% I I I GARAGE LOT '¢A ll I HELL ,o J0, 7, 35,581 50. FT. I I o J RS Rs (UNIMPROVED) S J4 U0100' W 300.00" s,° SUMM/T A MVUE `—' LP.F N J4 70 b0" E 150.00, U.P. LRF. U.P. � �\ \ 0.4" I \ II 1 I 1 i/ moi• 1 1 Itn Iti " ASPHAL T DRIWWAY r , / Ix �l i TRA ,T 2 I I 1 l 40.938 FT. 1 Ila w I I I r di_ v.�.viL 2 - --1 L-- ---- 1 , , F nPoSE 1 ' 1 PA IED $Tfln1 1 ACCESS 1 I ROAD -- -- LD1/ MON,I.P.F. S 35106 8 WWH MCV. 150.19 ":P. F. CV LINE 1.0" OYV UNE 1.4" SEtPS/IG� STATE HWY. RT. 522 N. 10'r9c "'`INc pRo P60TY LOT COMB/NAAON o� pEC r-'1C<<'K1A' ON GRAPHIC SCALE awl'T 25L075 4 — 9 — BLOCK 11 0 3o so 130 ' RID GEWA Y HEIGHTS ` — OPE000N DLSIR/CT FREDER/CK COUNTY, PIRG/NIA IN FEET ) 1 inch = 60 M SHEET 2 Of- 2 [FLOW PLAT RAS BEEN PREPARED mmol -Tr THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT OA IE• JANUARY 1,� 1998 , )DES NOT NECESSARRY INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY. SCAM 1 = 60" NVER-• HUICHINGS PURCHASER. MCCLEAREN W.O. / 98006 TH p N01E - NE C COMMUNITY NO. 510063 PANEL- 0200 B DATE. 7-17-78 IDC)VLYiKCI'.xtL EDWARD W. DOVE 9 p_ A�.�� 21 �d W wrMYq wall p4dueed/toiL /'Me 54-17-3(A) O9 OL j�JIJ L d toknowleddgment thereto annexed / 64 3078 SHAWNEE DRIVE was admrtod 10 r000rd. Tax lmposed by Sec. 18.1-902 of P.O. BOX 2033 s , and ee.1-e01 have been paid. H assessable. WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 2: �D SURv�'`t (540)667-1103 4z,-" Clerk LOT CONSOLIDA TION cw LOTS 4 — 9 BLOCK 11 R/DGEWA Y HEIGHTS OPEOUON D/STT/CT FREDERICK COUNTY, WRC/NIA TAX MAP i 94A -1-I1-4 THROUGH 9 ZONE. RA USE. SINGLE FAMILY RES/DEN7IAL 1 1-�"\ N\ a �� 't eo REDERIC�NTY - TY _ - N AR P KE O �">y SURVEYOR'S CER Rf-ICA TF / EDWARD W. DOVE, A DUL Y AUTHOR/ZED LAND SURWYOR, DO HEREBY CER77FY THAT LOIS 4 THROUGH 9 ARE /N THE NAME OF JACK & DENISE MCCLEAREN AND /S ALL THE LAND CONVEYED TO THEM BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 29 1997 AND RECORDED AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF 7HE CLERK OF 7HE C/RCU/T COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, NRG/N/A /N DEED BOCK 891 AT PACE 1505. / L EDWARD W. DOVE, L.S OWNERS' CER77F/CA TF" THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING LOT CONSOL/DA DON OF LOTS 4 - 9 /S WITH 7HE FREE CONSENT AND /N ACCORDANCE WITH 7HE DESIRES Of- 7HE F7HE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS PROPRIETORS, AND 7RU57EES IF ANY. 'c(x"1N,rrcr Y K.l Valel CIL 7a -W7. / tv - WAYluE m l 1 r t-2 A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FAP 1HE CVUNTY ANO STALE Afoyf,5A1D, DO N WEV r C£RAfY 1NAT iT AI r SG f+ CC iLl P�jt/ WOSE NAMES ARE' .gAVED RJ WE fLW£GaNG HRI77NG DA LL -DO t .TR /J 1 �l 9 4 HAY£ PERSAVALL Y APPEARED BEFUP£ A(&� IN MY COUNTY Af7x7ES.1/O, AND AorNOW- LEDG�D INC SAME U MY NAND 7HC _ IN DAY CF `!s f tt &ICY rg NOTARY PY/BU MY CDMMlSs7 EtY/RES &A ,, MANOR SUBDI NSION ,D APPROVED / OF P AIF - r ENGINEERS DATE: JANUARY /3, 1998 PLANNERS & ASSOCIATES SURVEYORS SCALE: NONE 3078 SHAWNEE DRIVE P.O. 80X 2033 DRAWN BY JLA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (540)667-1103 SHEET 1 OF 2 PC REVIEW DATE: 04/01/98 BOS REVIEW DATE: 04/22/98 REZONING APPLICATION #004-98 CENTRAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY To Rezone 63.5 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) LOCATION: This property is located west of the intersection of Shady Elm Road (Route 65 1) and Apple Valley Road (Route 652). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 63-A-58 and 63-A-59 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA, Rural Areas District Land Use: Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North - Zoned: RP, Residential Performance Use: Residential (including Valley Acres) RA, Rural Areas Agricultural (Kernstown Battlefield) South - Zoned: M-1, Light Industrial Use: Vacant East - Zoned: M-1, Light Industrial Use: Manufacturing (General Electric) West - Zoned: RA, Rural Areas Use: Vacant PROPOSED USE: Light Industrial (Manufacturing, Warehousing and Office) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to rezoning of this property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Fifth Edition for review. Any work performed on state rights-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co., REZ #004-98 Page 2 March 23, 1998 Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority: Providing water and sewer service to this site is contingent upon: 1) Cardinal Glass locating at the Kernstown site; 2) Feasibility of extending water and sewer lines to the intersection of Route 651 and 652. Note: Please refer to staff comment regarding water and sewer service under Community Facilities and Services. Public Works: The County Engineer has expressed concerns with projected increases in traffic and impacts to existing traffic patterns, and has requested additional information for the survey plan for this site. See attached letter dated February 20, 1998 from Ed Strawsnyder. Frederick Co. Fire and Rescue: No comments. Stephens City Fire and Rescue: Approved as re -submitted with the updated proffer statement. City of Winchester Public Utilities: The City of Winchester has available water and sewer infrastructure located in the immediate area of your planned facility which could provide the necessary water and wastewater services for your operations. Note: The provision of service for this site by the City of Winchester Public Utilities would require approval by the Service Authority. A request of this nature has not been made at this time. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB recommends a 40 -foot height restriction on all buildings that are to be constructed on the subject parcel. County Attornev: Appear to be sufficient and appropriate language; however, contract owners signature not required but the owner's signature is required. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History County records do not indicate any activity associated with this 63.5 acre tract other than transfer of ownership by deed. Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co., REZ #004-98 Page 3 March 23, 1998 2) Location The 63.5 -acre tract is located within the Frederick County Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This tract has a significant amount of frontage along Shady Elm Road (Route 65 1) and Apple Valley Road (Route 652), and is located approximately one-quarter mile from the intersection of Valley Pike (Route 11) and Apple Valley Road. The majority of the properties on the south side of Apple Valley Road are zoned M-1, Light Industrial, with the exception of the Hawthorne tract which is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The majority of the properties on the north side of Apple Valley Road are zoned RP, Residential Performance, with the exception of the Grim Estate which is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Grim Estate is the location of the portion of the Kernstown Battlefield that the county, city, Kernstown Battlefield Association (KBA), and others in the private sector are attempting to acquire. 3) Site Suitability The 63.5 -acre tract does not contain areas of flood plain, or woodlands, and contains minor areas of steep slope and wetlands. The majority of the steep slope and wetland areas are situated in the area of a dry pond located near the northern property limits. This area is envisioned to be developed into a regional storm water management facility for the entire 63.5 -acre tract should this property be rezoned. The 63.5 -acre tract contains soils that are classified as prime agricultural soils. 4) Potential Impacts a) Transportation: The applicant has prepared a detailed traffic impact analysis which accounts for the development of 24.88 acres of the 63.5 acre tract, and accounts for a worst case scenario for development of the remaining 38.62 acres. The traffic impact analysis provides current average daily traffic counts (ADT) for Shady Elm Road, Apple Valley Road, and Valley Pike, trip distribution data based on vehicle type, peak hour trip generation for a.m. and p.m. peaks, turning movement data, the percent increase in ADT based on the development of the 24.88 acres and the remaining acreage, and Level Of Service information based on current conditions and future conditions assuming no improvements to Shady Elm Road, Apple Valley Road, and Valley Pike. The development of 24.88 acres of this tract for the Coca-Cola facility will increase the ADT by 432 trips per day. It is estimated that 332 of these trips will be two -axle vehicles and 100 trips will be six, ten, and 18 wheel vehicles. An a.m. peak of 125 trips per hour is projected, while a p.m. peak of 117 trips per hour is projected. The development of this acreage will Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co., REZ 9004-98 Page 4 March 23, 1998 increase the ADT count on Shady Llm Road by 14%, on Apple Vaiiey Road by 34% for trips traveling north to Middle Road and 14% for trips traveling to Valley Pike, and will increase the ADT count for trips traveling from Valley Pike to Route 37 by 3%. The traffic analysis for the development of the remaining acreage reflects a worst case scenario of general office use with a floor -to -area -ratio (FAR) of 1.0. This scenario would increase the ADT by an additional 14,226 trips per day, and would increase the a.m. peak trip generation by 1,986 vehicles and the p.m. peak trip generation by 1,812 vehicles. The requirements of the rezoning application process mandate that the applicant provide information for a worst case scenario if a use or square footage of building area is not proffered. However, staff believes that the actual ADT for the remaining acreage will be substantially less. The Army Corp of Engineers facility in the Prince Frederick Office Park represents the largest office facility in the county. This facility is 99,060 square feet and has an FAR of 0.22. The applicant has demonstrated that the Level Of Service for all of these road segments will decrease significantly if the worst case scenario is developed and no improvements to the current road system are made. It should be noted that the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) calls for improvements to Shady Elm Road and Apple Valley Road. These improvements include the widening of Shady Elm Road to four lanes and the development of a new interchange at Route 37, and the improvements to Apple Valley Road to create four lanes from Valley Pike to Shady Elm Road and improve the two lanes from Shady Elm Road to Middle Road. The applicant is aware of the long-range transportation planning depicted by WATS and plans to participate in the process necessary to implement these improvements. b) Community Facilities and Services: Water and Sewer Service The 63.5 -acre tract does not have water and sewer service at this time, although inclusion in the SWSA would permit this extension. The applicant has indicated that the development of the 24.88 acres of this tract for Coca-Cola will require a water demand of 88,000 gallons per day, and a sewer generation of 26,400 gallons per day. No estimates for the remaining acreage have been provided. The FCSA has advised staff they can provide service with adequate capacity to this site, as well as other properties within this area. This service will be accomplished through a public/private partnership effort involving the development of a 20 -inch water line main and the development of the Hogue Run sewer interceptor which will connect this area with the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. Staff has been advised that it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to provide service to the Kernstown area, and that a financial agreement will be made with the FCSA to accomplish this. Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co., REZ #004-98 Page 5 March 23, 1998 Fire and Rescue Service The Capital Facilities Impact Model was applied to this rezoning application on October 7, 1997. The results of this model run demonstrated a negative fiscal impact to fire and rescue services for capital costs. The applicant was provided with a copy of this impact model run on October 10, 1997. c) Historic Features: A portion of the 63.5 -acre tract is located directly across Apple Valley Road from the portion of the Kernstown Battlefield known as the Grim Estate. This site is one of three core sites identified in the Winchester -Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan of which acquisition is a priority. The National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valla of Virginia, September 1992 identified Kernstown as one of 15 major battlefields. This property is part of the identified battlefield and adjacent to the "core area." The applicant, including representatives of Coca-Cola and Triad Engineering, held two meetings with representatives of the county, the Economic Development Commission, the KBA, and the HRAB to discuss impacts and potential methods of mitigation. The applicant also participated in two meetings with the HRAB. The primary concern of the HRAB and the KBA was the need to protect the viewshed from the Grim Farm, particularly from Pritchards Hill. 5) Impact Statement/Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement for this rezoning which has been signed and notarized by the owner and the contract owner, and reviewed by the County Attorney. The applicant has proposed to mitigate the transportation impacts through the design and reconstruction of the Shady Elm Road/Apple Valley Road intersection, the dedication of all necessary right-of-way to implement the improvements specified in WATS, the provision of turn lanes along Apple Valley Road as required by VDOT, participation in the cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of Valley Pike and Apple Valley Road, and limiting access along Apple Valley Road to four new entrances for the entire tract. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution that is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Impact Model run for this rezoning. This monetary contribution is to be provided to Frederick County and allocated to the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company. The applicant has proffered to mitigate the impacts to the viewshed of the Grim Estate by limiting the height of all primary and accessory structures on the 63.5 -acre tract to 60 feet, screening all mechanical features situated on building rooftops, and screening of loading Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co., REZ #004-98 Page 6 March 23, 1998 areas. The applicant has also proffered to construct a berm along the entire length of the property that is six feet in height above the Apple Valley Road elevation and landscaped with evergreen and deciduous plantings. It should be noted that breaks in this berm will be required to accommodate the four proffered entrances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 04/01/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposal to rezone this property conforms with the Comprehensive Plan policies for development in the Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area of the county. The M-1, Light Industrial District, classification is consistent with other properties and land uses located on the south side of Apple Valley Road. The applicant has attempted to mitigate impacts to the transportation network through proffers that are consistent with the WATS and are acceptable to VDOT. The applicant has adequately mitigated the negative impact to fire and rescue capital costs through a monetary proffer that is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Impact Model. The applicant has attempted to mitigate the impacts to the viewshed of the Kernstown Battlefield by limiting structure heights, screening structure components and uses, and providing a ground level screen from the road. Although the proffer does not reduce the building height to 40 feet as recommended by the HRAB, it is the belief of staff that the limitation of accessory structure heights will limit the future development of this property to users that do not require tall structures. Structures that are allowed to exceed 60 feet in height, but will be restricted by this proffer, include automated storage facilities, silos, mills, transmission towers, commercial telecommunication facilities, smokestacks, cooling towers, and water tanks. Light industrial uses that have developed in the county without these facilities are all less than 40 feet in height. Staff believes that the applicant has adequately mitigated the impacts demonstrated by this rezoning application. O:\AGENDASq?_EWNE\COM MENTS\COCACOLA. REZ February 20, 1998 Mr. Steve Patton, P.E. Triad Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 2397 Winchester, Virginia 22604 RE: Rezoning Request for 63,505 acres Intersection of Routes 651 and 652 Frederick County, Virginia Dear Steve: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 Based on our review of the subject rezoning request, we offer the following comments: 1. Impact Analysis: a. Traffic: The Virginia Department of Transportation will be responsible for determining the road upgrades required to accommodate the projected increases in traffic. It appears that the proposed development will have a significant impact on the existing traffic patterns. The existing road network is obviously inadequate without significant improvements. b. Drainage: The discussion of proposed stormwater management facilities refers to retention rather than detention. Verify that a wet pond or retention pond is planned in lieu of a detention pond. 2. Survey Plan: a. Add a vicinity map. b. Indicate total acreage on property survey for the area to be rezoned. 107 North hent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Rezoning Comments Page 2 February 25, 1998 C. Indicate existing and proposed zoning designations for the property in question. Our approval of the rezoning will be contingent upon receipt of a revised property survey plan. Sincerely, Harvey . S awsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director ublic Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Zoning file Rezoning #004-98 PIN: 63-A-58 & 59 Central Coca-Cola Bottling Company This map was produced by Frederick Co. Planning & Development 3-16-88 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning-Staif- Zoning Amendment Number vert - 8 Q .Date Recei -. PC SearmgDate- The following information shall be provided by the applicant. All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Triad Engineering, Inc. Address: Post Office Box 2397 Winchester, Virginia 22604 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Telephone: 5401667-9300 Name: Mary D. Whitacre Telephone: 5401888-3561 Address: 780 Redland Road Whitacre, Virginia 22625 3. Contact person if other than above Name: t &C- vis t -- Telephone: foo) �& -7—F 77� 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map x A-yencv Comments x Plat x Fees x Deed to property x Impact Analysis Statement x Verification of takes paid x Proffer Statement. x 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Central Coca-Cola Bottling Company Mary D. Whitacre 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural B) Proposed Use of the Property: Light Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: 63-((A))-18 A & B 63-((A))-40 63-((A))-41 63-((A))-42 63 -((A)) -40A 63-((A))-43 MIM Rural Area (RA) Rural Area (RA) Residential Performance Residential Performance (RP) Residential Performance (RP) Residential Performance (RP) 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection. using road names and route numbers): This property is located west of the intersection of Route 651 (Shady Elm Road) and Route 652 (Apple Valley Road). Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 63-((A))-58 & 59 Magisterial: Back Creek Fire Service: Stephens City Rescue Service: Stephens City istricts High School: Sherando Middle School: .lames Wood Elementary School: Robinson 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 63.5052 RA M-1 63.50521 Total acreage to be rezoned f`Ci _ A 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezon proposed: Single Family homes: 0 Non -Residential Lots: 4 laron,�- a a Townhome: 0 Mobile Home: 0 uare Footage of Pronosed Use Multi -Family: 0 Hotel Rooms: Office: 1, 513,865 Service Station: n Retail: 0 Manufacturing: 18 3 . Fi 0 0 Restaurant: n Warehouse: 795, 3 5 n Other: 0 13 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. r Date: `�_146� Date: --' - M T-UVdA_-7V � Owner(s): ✓ate: Date: 14 I TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. - WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA VICINITY MAP ao7 TLZNG- CENTRAL COCA-COLA nni ' T' CO., INC. FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAWING NO.: V-7 SCALE' V-2000' DATE 3-6-98 JOB NUMBER: CD -019 : t. CIVIL ENGINEER: NorEsf ~ TRIADENGINEERING. INC_ t�l� P.O. 90K 2397 Yasf +E WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22604 x{24 J6 S4 ° 540-667-9300 L nr rijrjrj' II Y47'22"E 2• THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL ! l 124 77• FIELD RUN BOUNDARY SURVEY PERFORMED BY TRIAD ENGINEERING. INC. - DATED NOVEMBER 6. 1997. // 1� \ l Arc=247.66 3. AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING WAS PERFORMED BY VIRGINIA MAPP[NC. "V 't\ J �' C1 �� f�=0513=2564.75' INC. DATED NOVEMBER 13. 1997. J Il \len=t2}•9J• 0. THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL AREA (RAI ANO +. _ \ Dl st_2 AT, 57' CONSISTS OF 6},5052 ACRES. REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY IS REQUESTED ` P 1 FROM RURAL AREA (RAI ZONING TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M -II ZONING. ` T. [ I,' 1 Ec ! J THE MIODLEBURG BANK re 1 — � / I i K •ItlRCe , 20,1e r� eXvAs. I'• '.:- / ( :/ Eee' / xU�.IKEYsc. .coir roti BLACKBURN LIMITED / -Jr , LSO // ! /l J ) I 1 ( 1 I JI 4rxEcr. PARTNERSHIP Ir IIa [3TEK. r. 22101 u2dE°t.Acw�..J01 P. THE NIODLEBURG BANK i I \ Z G\ (� _\ .IgaEelnr:.[v: sz°I IE Old �- 'ti (� L •^ �• ( I \ Ixr.-iZe. 1 ALVIN C. d �. s' •'i 1 \ 4 l / J ) ( / 2 c ' BILLY 6. LETCIHER xcxE6 613N 22w22 j 20rE0: M 1°r — _ BETTY BARYON d _ _ CHARLES B. STINE _MARY Q. W t'TA R StHFLRSC. )WH [ Td REQ / - \ \ ' k l.[ A eLE rALLEI POAO / _ S ND R W. KR�Z S [' �_ ]snlrI 26W � 6315052`AcZ — �� ` // / r�L-- USE, 2si x°c•L[ FWILT REFI PO•E0591Rm 14}`` ``�=-:` q,JtE Eft ]tl' PIE BETTY E BARTON d CHARLES S. STINE znc°RP ell °Er � FECpet-�a�RArCz•T8. 44"' E 4ED-O44oT O 1 <- -- ^ I I Ton=179.252.60' m ��`'• �\ r ] _i( :^ \--'! Chord=547'5 i 7'15"E /J� `\ s!'b+v[�cxr D;st=278.41' C. BRUCE OAW60N-� �� ^ / \ y' y ` _ 1 l \ f r ^Ill ��`` 8¢WMaN4Tad.21190 INC. 110-. IwOUSTKIK -E .IxCx[SIEK. uGE VO100+11-,u_ I v :0x101 Ie ♦xr J / f l`J _ l %7 � t + 1 _ r ` \ � �- � \� I1� ufE: vAunr -c\ FpZOORY WILSON I-LLEI i2� 2cwe�TEau YSE, uILr IEOEsuI D. EMORv WILSON \ — \ / \ \ L `f 1116iCKfrER�xV�E `22602 —/� _� \ f 1 usfl sIw KE:xq. IeCAI / '` J ` — / .-. — r i\— f I� I •� \ {� J rfLfb+Owf \~Pn`*� f /SSB' 15 il.{7� BARBARA L IND BLEPDSOE .EOES�AL ` (( ELECT [0 [°.. 1.Z B' j-� y 2)2 .IRE r 0.0 .` rt '4[EYLL .\ JE f,_ PPE .. .. �. PrI a( .—. JILPE. "' UTE I I D. L.a�f'E u°r A r2 L.eLE `3 --- ]L wee3 �IdGS xGG1r0 66 Y ' 4LLT � 66]ij � -^ x6GT.' I ttlxEtl: _ _ .��—_ 1 YSE, 11-1 I-ILI r� 11 ::v[:i /`sr.sE Kc. �, J \ = -_= �-f=: Kms: \ f of 14Tw ECi0al 0=04 5 3 0 603" r!. l7 r.' .IK mesa L 7 �C"W*- i '� 1"nIrn C\ Rcd!LIs�121.62' GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. Tan=28.36' Chor=56700'36"w usE. Y tl° ist"w", op P� �D=Sfi.6xE��4q, FIFACTUAIn PLMT \\` ruSf�NAL ��11 ]� )00 600 900 1200 ICK[: 1 VYY' ' t REZONING PROPERTY SURVEY DRAWING ND Z-1 SCAL_ 1".3010' ...... "v`- CENTRAL COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. DAT_: 6 -?9 TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Oumerc of rnr ..., ariir�inirl u1�e I�L7 „'iii be iivtified of then arming Commission and the Board Frope mini g 1 of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Blackburn Limited Partnership 110 Hawthorne Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 63-((A)) - 80-1 Name The Middleburg Bank P. 0. Box 5 Middleburg, VA 20118 Pro errv# 63 -((A)) -ISA & B Name Alvin G. & Billy G. Fletcher 336 Apple Valley Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property# 63-((A))-41 Name Charles R. & Betty B. Stine 318 Apple Valley Road Winchester, VA 22602 Prooertv # 63-((A))-42 Name Charles R. & Betty B. Stine 318 Apple Valley Road Winchester, VA 22602 Prooerm• "- 63 -((A)) -40A Name Bowman Trucking, Inc. Prooem•- 63-((A))-40 P. 0. Box 2598 Winchester, VA 22604 246 Apple Valley Road Winchester, VA 22602 Name Emory D. Wilson Name Emory D. Wilson 246 Apple Valley Road Winchester, VA 22602 232 Apple Valley Road 11inchester, VA 22602 Prooem " 63-((A))-44 Name Barbara L. Bledsoe Name General Electric Company P. 0. Box 60340 Ft. Myer, FL 33906 Prooem = 63-((A) )-57A 15 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name General Electric Company P. 0. Box 60340 Ft. Myer, FL 33906 Pro em # 63-((A))-61 Name Bruce C. Dawson 110-A Industrial Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Pro erry o 63-((A))-59A Name Pro em # Name Property 4 Name Property Name Pro erty rt Name Pro em # Name Prooerry 4 Name Prooem Y Name Prooerry 1 Name Proerty T Name Pro em' 1 Name Pro em = Name Prooem 16 REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 63-((A))-58 and 63-((A))59 Back Creek Magisterial District COCA-COLA BOTTLING FACILITY Preliminary Matjters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 g.seg., of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #Q* -i for the rezoning of 63.5052 acres from Rural Area (RA) Zoning District to the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors or assigns. Site Improvements 1. The Applicant proffers that it shall design and construct a realignment to Route 652 at the intersection of Route 651 and Route 652. The realignment shall consist of shifting Route 652 to the southwest to intersect Route 651 at a ninety (90) degree angle and adding turn lanes on Route 652 as required by VDOT. Right-of- way for the realignment of Route 652 will be dedicated to VDOT upon approval of a site plan for the first building, or at the time the property is subdivided. 2. The Applicant further agrees to dedicate a thirty-five (35) fcct right-of-way along the south side of Route 652 for the entire parcel frontage that is not included in the realignment of Route 651. Right-of-way for Route 652 will be dedicated to VDOT upon approval of a site plan for the first building, or at the time the property is subdivided. 2. The Applicant agrees to dedicate a sixty (60) foot right- of-way along the west side of Route 651 for the entire parcel RE ON_ REQUEST PROFFER COCA-COLA BOTTLING rACTLITY Page 2 frontage. Right-of-way for Route 651 will be dedicated to VDOT upon approval of a site plan for the first building, or at the time the property is subdivided. 4. The applicant agrees to participate in the signalization at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 652. When requested by VDOT, the applicant will pay twenty thousand (20, 000) dollars or twenty-five (25) percent of the cost of the new traffic signal, whichever is less. 5. The applicant agrees to 1 imi t the number of entrances along the south side of Route 652 into this property to a maximum of four (4 ) entrances. Two (2) entrances will be used by the Coca- Cola Bottling facility. One (1) entrance will be used for each separate parcel created by the subdivision of this property with frontages along Route 652. All entrances along Route 652 will be the width required by VDOT for two-way traffic based on the proposed use of the parcel. The entrance for the western parcel of land will be located at least sixty (60) feet east and not more than 250 feet east of the western property line. The entrance for the central parcel of land will be located at least thirty (30) feet west and not more than 200 feet west of the western Coca-Cola Bottling facility property line. Building Restrictions The development of the subject property shall include the following building restrictions provided in these proffers. 1. The maximum height for all primary and ancillary structures will be sixty (60) feet. Roof top mechanical equipment is not subject to the sixty (60) foot height restriction. However, all roof top mechanical equipment will be screened from all adjacent properties. 2. All loading docks shall be screened from view from all adjacent Rural Area (RA) or Residential Performance (RP) Zoning Districts. Landscape Desian Features The development of the subject property, and the submission of any Master Development Plan, shall include the following landscape design features provided in these proffers. 1. A full screen earth berm will be provided between all developed parts of the subject property and all Rural Area (RA) and Residential Performance (RP) Zoning Districts, except where entrances are required for the Coca-Cola Bottling facility. The top of the berm will be a minimum of six (6) feet higher than Route 652, with a minimum top width of four (4) feet and maximum side slopes of four horizontally to one vertically. During REZC.d_ REQUEST PRCS_ __, COC.= -COL_Y 90TTL ING FACILITY Pa ge 3 the development of the future parcels of land adjacent tc the earth berm, the berm shall only be removed to the extent required to accommodate the new entrance to the site from Route 652. If during construction the berm is removed in excess of that required to accommodate the entranc`, the bezmm w111 be replaced to the maximum extent possible by the developer of the parcel of land. 2. Landscape screening shall be provided in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and in conjunction with the full screen earth berm. Landscaping in conjunction with the earth berm will consist of a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. At least two thirds (2/3) of the trees shall be evergreens. All trees shall be of the type that will thrive within the Shenandoah Valley. Evergreens shall be at least six (6) feet in height at planting. Deciduous trees shall have a calliper of at least two (2) inches at a height of one (1) foot above root ball. Covenants and Restrictions The Applicant shall record and include in each deed as well as provide Frederick County with a complete set of Covenants and Restrictions in substantial conformance with the Protective Covenants and Restrictions as submitted with the Impact Analysis Statement and these Proffers. Monetary Contributions to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who has a contract to purchase the subject parcel of land, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 63.5052 acre tract, lying on the west side of Route 651 and the south side of Route 652 in the Back Creek Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from Rural Area (RA) Zoning District to the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District, the undersigned will pay Frederick County, at the time of the issuance of the first grading permit, the sum of nineteen thousand four hundred forty-four dollars and seventy-four cents ($19,441.74) to be allocated Co the Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company. Respectfully Submitted, CONTRACT OWNERS: By. Da t e REZON. REQUEST PRCF_ _R COC3-COLA BOTTLING FACILITY Page 4 F", - IF I IA7 gAr I'MA STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this a 7 -tL day of F(f vA4, 1998, by , e7� .Sq i►.� CLt it,' "i �qn/ My Commission expires�oye-AA berg 30, f 9 q r Notary Public -[�✓�,a�— REZONING REQUEST ?RC= COCA-COLA BOTTLING F.uC Page 5 OWNER: Da t e: �u-vdvcCi� j� l� STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of1998, by _�tAAj My Commission expires J,)I-c, 31, Zoya Notary Public PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR COCA-COLA BOTTLING FACILITY RECITALS Whereas, the contract owner desires to create on the property and any additions thereto an area of mixed business and light industrial uses, and the desire to provide for the preservation and enhancement of the property values, amenities and opportunities within the property and for the maintenance of the real estate and improvements thereon, and to this end desires to subject the property to the covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinafter set forth. ARTICLE I PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Declaration to assure the orderly and attractive development of the property in an efficient and harmonious manner, to preserve and enhance property values, amenities and opportunities within the property, to promote the health and safety of the occupants and to maintain a harmonious relationship among the structures and the natural topography thereon. This declaration is designed to complement the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and other local and state government regulations and ordinances, and where conflicts occur, the more rigid requirement shall prevail. ARTICLE II PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED USES PROHIBITED USES Approval from any public agency notwithstanding, no operation will be permitted which creates objectionable noise, smoke, odor or which in any other way, in the opinion of the Board, will constitute a nuisance or degrade the values of the real estate within or adjacent to the property. No rubbish or debris of any kind shall be placed or permitted to accumulate upon or adjacent to any site, except in approved waste containers. PRO'_ EC='- VECOVES^l.� ^:' :LVD RESTS= --T ONS COC.-'-COLti BOTTLING FACILITY Page 2 ARTICLE III DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BUILDING MATERIAL AND DESIGN Exterior walls Exterior wall material shall be either pre -cast concrete, cold storage panels or brick. LANDSCAPING Landscane Plan All open areas on each lot not occupied by buildings and paved areas shall be suitably graded and drained and shall be landscaped with lawns, trees, shrubs or ground cover. The landscape plan shall be submitted with the site plan for each planned development within the subdivided parcel and shall show such things as the planting of trees, shrubs, ground cover and grass and the installation of earth berms and screens and optional underground sprinkler systems. Plant material shall be in conformance with American Association of Nurserymen Standards for Nursery Stock, latest edition (ANN). Landscaping, as approved, shall be installed within one planting season of occupancy or within six months of substantial completion of any building, whichever occurs first, provided that an extension may be granted in the event of inclement weather. The date of substantial completion shall mean the date on which the exterior walls and roof have been installed. The installation and maintenance of all landscaping on each site shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner. Maintenance All landscaping on each lot shall be properly maintained by the owner of the lot. Maintenance shall include all necessary cutting, watering, fertilizing, aerating, spraying, pruning and required replacement. Dead or damaged planting material shall be promptly replaced. EXTERIOR LIGHTING All exterior lighting shall be designed, erected, altered and maintained in accordance with the final drawings and specifications as approved by Frederick County. Lighting shall be compatible and harmonious throughout the entire property and shall be in keeping with the specific use of the building. On-site lighting shall be directed away from all uses within the Rural Area (RA) or Residential Performance (RP) Zoning Districts. Light sources shall be screened to reduce visible glare from all adjacent properties and public streets. All outside wiring for exterior lights shall be installed underground. PROTECTIVE COVEN_ v AiVD RESTRICTI015 COCA -COLT] BOTTLING FACILITY Page 3 UTILITIES All new utility lines, including electrical and telecommunication lines shall be installed and maintained underground. CONSTR UCTION Once commenced, construction shall be diligently pursued to completion. No construction or building materials, vehicles or mobile buildings shall be located or stored within street rights- of-way. MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION During construction the owner shall be responsible for keeping the premises in reasonably neat condition, preventing the accumulation of trash, and shall prevent runoff of soil from the site onto adjacent property or public rights-of-way.. MAINTENANCE No building or other improvement on the property shall be permitted by its owner or occupant to fall into disrepair, and each such building and other improvements shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair, properly maintained and adequately painted or otherwise finished, clean and safe. All asphalt or concrete paved surfaces shall be resurfaced or sealed as needed and all potholes shall be promptly repaired. Unimproved sites shall be maintained in a reasonably neat condition, free of debris. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS Property owners will participate in any storm water management program established or to be established for the property by the declarant. Property owners shall contribute to the cost of maintaining a common retention area and other shared storm water management facilities on a contractual basis, as set forth in the written agreements between the owner and the declarant. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Owners and occupants shall comply with all federal, state and localgover=ent statutes, ordinar_ces and regulations relating to environmental protection, in relation to the property. IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT New Coca-Cola Bottling Facility Frederick County, Virginia Prepared By TRIAD ENGINEERING, Inc. 200 Aviation Drive P.O. Box 2397 Winchester Virginia, 22604 January 26, 1998 This Impact Analysis Statement was prepared for the rezoning of a 63.5052 acre parcel of land northwest of the intersection of Route 651 (Shady Elm Road) and Route 652 (Apple Valley Road) . Rezoning is requested from RA (Rural Area) to M-1 (Light Industrial). Currently, Central Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc. has an option to purchase the 63.5052 acre parcel. After the rezoning application is approved, the parcel will be subdivided and a Master Development Plan will be submitted for approval. At this time, the only planned development for the site is a new Coca-Cola bottling facility along the eastern part of the parcel which will be constructed in three (3) phases. A Site Plan will be submitted to Frederick County for approval of the new Coca-Cola bottling facility. The following information will address each of the specific issues defined in the Impact Analysis Statement requirements: Suitability of the Site: 100 -Year Flood Plain: Based on the July 17, 1978 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Community Panel #510063-0115B and #510063- 2008, there are no 100 -year flood plains within this parcel of land. Wetlands: The National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies one (1) source on this property. The wetland is located within the existing dry pond adjacent to Route 652 and is approximately 9,600 square feet in size. Based on the Wetlands Assessment prepared by Triad Engineering, Inc., this site does not contain jurisdictional wetlands. Steep Slopes: which comprises 0. steep slope area is 652. This site contains 001 percent of the within the existing 0.06 acres of steep slopes total parcel. The entire dry pond adjacent to Route Mature Woodlands: The majority of the site is open space with some small trees and scrub brush located along the north, south, and west property lines and around the dry pond. Based on the size, type and quality of the vegetation on the site, there are no woodlands on this parcel of land. Prime Agricultural Soil: Agriculture has been the primary use for this parcel for several years. The Soil Survey of Frederick County prepared by the Soil Conservation Service defines the soil types within this parcel of land as Carbo (5B and 6C) and Oaklet (322 and 32C). These soils range from not suited for cultivated crops to well suited for cultivated crops. Soils or Bedrock: The depth to bedrock varies greatly throughout the site with the minimum depth being approximately four (4) feet. Several rock outcrops are on the property. Grading plans are being developed in a manner which will minimize the blasting required to remove shallow hard rock. Surroundina Properties: This parcel is adjacent to property zoned M-1 to the south, east, and west. Properties to the north are zoned RP and RA. The RA properties are currently utilized for single family dwellings. The minimum setback from the existing dwellings to the existing property line is approximately 64 feet. The properties zoned RA are undeveloped at this time. Two of the RA zoned parcels are contained within the Grim Farm which is contained within the Kernstown Battlefield. The potential impacts on the surrounding properties associated with noise, smoke, dust and other nuisances or hazards will be minimized due to the fact that uses that produce these nuisances and hazards are not allowed within the M-1 zoning district. Glare from site lighting will be controlled to prevent glare beyond the property lot lines. Traffic: Road frontage for this property is provided by Route 651 and Route 652. Route 651 is a two lane road with a 21' +/- pavement width. Route 652 is also a two lane road with an 18' +/- pavement width. Route 651 and Route 652 intersect at the eastern corner of the property. Route 652 continues to the east for approximately 1300' to the intersection of U.S. Route 11 and Route 652. The following traffic count information was obtained from the Frederick County Planning Department: Rt. 651 from Rt. 469 to Rt. 652 908 TPD Rt. 652 from Rt. 628 to Rt. 651 898 TPD Rt. 652 from Rt. 651 to Rt. 11 3,128 TPD Rt. 11 from Rt. 37 to the southern City limits 13,000 TPD The property will be subdivided into four (4) parcels of land with a 4.33 acre right-of-way dedication. The initial development of the property consisting of a new Coca-Cola Bottling facility will occupy 24.88 acres of land. Trip generation for the Coca-Cola Bottling facility will be 432 trips per day (TPD) according to the information provided by Central Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc., based on recent traffic counts for similar uses throughout the company. This traffic count is for the ultimate development of the Coca-Cola Bottling facility and incorporates the number of employees, sales and delivery vehicles, and material transports. Using the information from the 5th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the following weekday trip generation rates were determined: Corporate Headquarters (714): 46 employees * 2.19 TPD/employee = 101 TPD Manufacturing (140) : 55 employees * 2.09 TPD/employee = 115 TPD Warehouse (150) : 4 employees * 3.89 TPD/employee = 16 TPD Sales/Distribution: Since there is no category for this type of service listed in the Trip Generation Manual we will assume that each employee will make four trips per day as follows: Trip 1: Arrive to start work. Trip 2: Begin deliveries. Trip 3: Return to work at the end of the day. Trip 4: Leave work at the end of the day. 50 employees * 4 TPD/Employee = 200 TPD Total Trips per Day = 432 TPD The total trips per day based on the information provided by the 5th Edition of the ITS Trip Generation Manual is the same as the information provided by Central Coca-Cola Bottling. To determine the type of traffic generated by Coca-Cola and the peak hour trip generation we will utilize the information provided by Central Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc. as shown in appendix A. Plate A shows the trip generation and traffic distribution for the Coca-Cola Bottling facility. The percent increase in the total number of trips on the road segments identified above, based on the information presented in Plate A will be as follows: Rt. Morning 651 from Rt. 469 to Rt. 652: 131 TPD / 908 TPD = 141,- 40Rt. Rt. 652 from Rt. 628 to Rt. 651: 301 TPD / 898 TPD = 340 Rt. 652 from Rt. 651 to Rt. 11: 432 TPD / 3,128 TPD = 140 Rt. 11 from Rt. 37 to S.C.L.: 432 TPD / 13,000 TPD = 31 - p Morning peak hour trip generation will occur between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM. The morning peak hour trip generation will be 125 TPH. Plate B shows the morning peak hour traffic distribution for the Coca-Cola site. Afternoon peak hour trip generation will occur between 3:00 PM and 4:00 PM. The afternoon peak hour trip generation will be 117 TPH. Plate C shows the afternoon peak hour traffic distribution for the Coca-Cola Site. Traffic generation for the remaining parcels will be calculated based on the information provided in the 5 th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The worst case scenario would be a general office building (code 710) constructed on each parcel of land. The second parcel of land is located south of the Coca-Cola Bottling facility. This parcel will consist of 8.79 acres of land and would have access along Route 651. Based on a FAR of 1, there could possibly be a 382,892 square foot office building constructed on this parcel. The weekday trip generation would be: Ln (T) = [0. 756 * Ln (X) 1 + 3.765 Where T = trip generation X = 1000 square feet of gross Ln (T) = [0.756 * 5.9481 + 3.765 Ln(T) = 4.497 + 3.765 Ln(T) = 8.262 T = 3,872 Trips Per Day (TPD) floor area = 382.892 The morning peak hour trip generation would be: Ln (T) = (0. 777 * Ln (X) 1 + 1. 674 Ln (T) = (0. 777 * S. 9481 + 1 . 674 Ln (T) = 4. 621 + 1. 674 Ln (T) = 6.295 T = 542 Trips Per Hour (TPH) For the morning peak hour, the trip distribution would be 8.9-9,5- (482 99(482 trips) entering the site and 110 (60 trips) exiting the site. The afternoon peak hour trip generation would be: Ln(T) = [0.737 * Ln (X) 1 + 1.831 Ln(T) = [0.737 * 5.9481 + 1.831 Ln(T) = 4.383 + 1.831 Ln(T) = 6.214 T = 500 Trips Per Hour (TPH) For the afternoon peak hour, the trip distribution would be 17-'0' (85 trips) entering the site and 830 (415 trips) exiting the site. The third parcel of land is located west of the Coca-Cola Bottling facility. This parcel will consist of 14.33 acres of land and would have access along Route 652. Based on a FAR of 1, there could possibly be a 624,215 square foot office building constructed on this parcel. The weekday trip generation would be 5,722 TPD. The morning peak hour trip generation would be 792 TPH. The trip distribution would be 890 (705 trips) entering the site and 110 (87 trips) exiting the site. The fourth parcel of land is located west of the third parcel. This parcel will consist of 11.14 acres of land and would have access along Route 652. Based on a FAR of 1, there could possibly be a 485,258 square foot office building constructed on this parcel. The weekday trip generation would be 4,632 TPD. The afternoon peak hour trip generation would be 717 TPH. The trip distribution would be 170 (122 trips) entering the site and 830 (595 trips) exiting the site. The fourth parcel of land is located west of the third parcel. This parcel will consist of 11.14 acres of land and would have access along Route 652. Based on a FAR of 1, there could possibly be a 485,258 square foot office building constructed on this parcel. The weekday trip generation would be 4,632 TPD. The morning peak hour trip generation would be 652 TPH. The trip distribution would be 890 (580 trips) entering the site and 11a (72 trips) exiting the site. Plate D shows the trip generation for the entire site based on the ultimate development of the Coca-Cola site for the first parcel and general office space for the remaining parcels. Plates E and F show the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic distribution for the ultimate development of the Coca-Cola site for the first parcel and general office space for the remaining parcels respectively. The percent increase in the total number of trips on the road segments identified above, based on the information presented in Plate D will be as follows: Rt. The afternoon peak hour trip generation would be 595 TPH. The trip di s tribu tl on would be 17; (101 trips) entering the site and 83s (494 trips) exiting the site. Plate D shows the trip generation for the entire site based on the ultimate development of the Coca-Cola site for the first parcel and general office space for the remaining parcels. Plates E and F show the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic distribution for the ultimate development of the Coca-Cola site for the first parcel and general office space for the remaining parcels respectively. The percent increase in the total number of trips on the road segments identified above, based on the information presented in Plate D will be as follows: Rt. 651 from Rt. 469 to Rt. 652: 4003 TPD / 908 TPD = 4410 Rt. 652 from Rt. 628 to Rt. 651: 10,655 TPD / 898 TPD = 11 1870 Rt. 652 from Rt. 651 to Rt. 11: 14, 658 TPD / 3, 128 TPD = 4690 Rt. 11 from Rt. 37 to S.C.L.: 14, 658 TPD / 13,000 TPD = 1130 Calculations for the level of service for the above referenced roads is included in appendix B. As shown in the following table, the level of service for each road segment will drop without the road improvements described in the "Year 2020 Long -Range Roadway Improvements" plan. Road Segment Rt. 651 from Rt. 469 to Rt. 652 Rt. 652 from Rt. 628 to Rt. 651 Rt. 652 from Rt. 651 to Rt. 11 Rt. 11 from Rt. 37 to S.C.L. Water Suppl v: Existing LOS Future LOS B D B E C E E E Water demand for the three phases of the new Coca-Cola bottling facility is estimated to be approximately 88,000 gallons per day for domestic and process water usage. At this time, the water demand for the remainder of the site cannot be accurately estimated due to the fact that certain uses within the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District may require substantially more water than other uses. Sewage Convevance and Treatment: Sewage generation from the three phases of the new Coca-Cola bottling facility will be approximately 26,400 gallons per day which is thirty (30) percent of the water demand. At this time, the sewage generation for the remainder of the site cannot be accurately estimated due to the fact that certain uses within the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District may generate substantially more sewage than other uses. Drainage: The parcel drains to the north and east and contains no streams or creeks. A dry pond was formed along the northern boundary of the parcel when Route 652 was constructed. An existing 12" culvert is located under Route 652 to drain the runoff that flows to the dry pond. Two (2) 15" x 21" culverts are located under Route 651 to drain the runoff that flows to the east. During the initial construction on this parcel, a storm water management pond will be constructed in the area of the existing dry pond. This storm water management pond will provide detention for the entire parcel. Detention will be provided to maintain the pre - development runoff rates for the two, ten, and twenty -five-year storms. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Solid waste generation from the three phases of the new Coca- Cola bottling facility will be approximately six and one half (6.5) tons per week. At this time, the solid waste generation for the remainder of the site cannot be accurately estimated due to the large range or waste generation rates for the allowable uses within the Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning District. Historic Sites and Structures: The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not indicate the existence of historic structures on this property, nor does it recognize the property as being potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places. The only historic site in the vicinity of the parcel is the Kernstown Battlefield which is on the north side of Route 652. The existing farm house is the only historic structure on this property. The farm house is approximately 2,400 feet from the northern property boundary. Impact on Community Facilities: The impacts associated with the rezoning of this parcel from Rural Area (RA) to Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning will be on Sheriff's Office protection, fire and rescue protection, solid waste disposal, water distribution and sewage conveyance. There will be no direct impacts on the educational and parks and recreation facilities as a result of this rezoning approval. The impacts from solid waste disposal will be small compared to the overall input to the existing sanitary landfill. Solid waste disposal from this property will be by a private collection agency. The tipping fees paid to the County by the private collection agency for the disposal of the solid waste from this property will negate any impact on the County solid waste facilities as a result of this rezoning. Impacts on the water distribution and sewage conveyance systems associated with the rezoning of this parcel from Rural Area (RA) to Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning should represent a small increase in the existing daily water demand and sewage collection and treatment. It is our understanding that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority is currently planning to extend the existing water distribution and sewage conveyance systems near this parcel of land. The fees paid to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for the water used and the sewage generated should negate any impact on the County treatment facilities as a result of this rezoning. Impacts on Sheriff's Office protection associated with the rezoning of this parcel from Rural Area (RA) to Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning should represent a minor increase in the services provided by the Sheriff's Office. The increase in Sheriff's Office protection associated with the rezoning of this property to an industrial use are much smaller than if this property would be rezoned to a residential use. It is assumed that the Sheriff's Office currently patrols the area around this parcel of land on a regular basis. The additional patrols required as a result in this rezoning will represent a small fraction of the Sheriff's Office man-hours and budget. It is assumed that all of the facilities to be constructed on this parcel of land will be manned twenty-four (24) hours a day or will have security systems. Impacts on fire and rescue protection associated with the rezoning of this parcel from Rural Area (RA) to Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning should represent the largest impact on the community facilities associated with this rezoning. Based on the County's Capital Facilities Impact Model, the capital costs not covered by the revenues received by the rezoning of this parcel would be $19,441.71. The developer has agreed, in the proffers, to provide this sum to the County upon approval of the rezoning of this property. Other Impacts: All of the impacts associated with the rezoning of this property from Rural Area (RA) to Light Industrial (M-1) have been addressed in the previous sections. There should be no other impacts on the community facilities or the surrounding properties. � 11 r.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.1 I jL_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. - - --- ----------- 1 142 TPD 142 TPD (2 AXLE VEHICLES) i (A LE EHICLES < 1 1 I � 17 TPD v I (7-6 WHEEL DELIVERY 7-10 WHEEL DELIVERY j 13-18 WHEEL DELIVERY) I I I I I I I L..-••. I j i i j (30-2 XLEj EyiCLES 7-6 W EEL. LIVERY. 7-10 W EELS E' ERY 3-18 W EEL. LIVERY) " „- (18 WHEEL DELIVERY WHEEL DEI_r � 30 TPD (2 AXLE VEHICLES) TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. NOTE: 1 - TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 15 SHOWN AS TRIPS PER OAY ITPDI. WEEKDAY TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION COCA-COLA BOTTLING FACILITY FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PLATE: A SCALE:NOT TO SCALE DATE 1-27-98 JOB NUMBER CD -019 � 11 i' I .j 1 1 1 I �. • j l y�.._,.. 90 TPH (2 AXLE VEHICLES) 1 I 1 ] 11. 17 TPH ] (7-6 WHEEL DELIVERY 7-10 WHEEL DELIVERY 1 13718 WHEEL DELIVERY', I I V I I15 TPH I 1 (2 AXLE VEHICLES WHEEL DELIVERY) I NOTE: 1. MORNING PEAK HOUR WILL BE BETWEEN 6:00 AM AND 7:00 AM. 2. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION IS SHOWN AS TRIPS PER HOUR (TPH). T ��; TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. MORNING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION COCA-COLA BOTTLING FACILITY FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PLATE:B SCALE: NOT To SCALE DATE 1-27-98 Joe NUMBER CD -o19 I 1► /• 1 1 M I•'I � 1 I,• I• 1 1 / I,. r.._.._..-.._..-.._.._------..-..--.-..-..--.-------..-.._..-..- 1 1. I _ j 1 ►� j 1- 1 T T I \� 70 TPH \ (2 AXLE VEHICLES) V 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 NOTE: 1. AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR WILL BE BETWEEN 3:00 AM AND 4:00 AM, 2. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION IS SHOWN AS TRIPS PER HOUR (TPH), AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR PLATE: TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION SCALE NOT TO SCALE TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. COCA-COLA BOTTLING FACILITY DATE: 1-27-98 .11 -IT,-, ,� FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JOB NUMBERS CD -019 2316 TPD -,e(2 AXLE VEHICLES)1 '',1 2316 TPD �.•� (2 AXLE VEHICLES)' cav i { 2861 TPD (2 AXLE VEHICLES) 1 I 2861 TPD I I (2 AXLE VEHICLES):1 �... 142 TPD { 42 TPD (2 AXLE VEHICLES) ( S 4 ALE EHICLEi � I . I I I 17 TPD j (7-6 WHEEL DELIVERY 7-10 WHEEL DELIVERY i 13-18 WHEEL DELIVERY) 1936 TPD k I(2 AXLE VEHICLES 1 (30 2 XLE' E�ICLES 7-6 W EEL! L VERY,i 7-10 W EELS E (VERY, 27 TPD 3-18 W EEL. L�VERY) (18 WHEEL DELIVERY) in 1976'TP6 (2 X. VEHICLES)w, WHEEL DELIVERY)_,•_••_,• _ -- -- -- -- r_ ,— _ ---- 30 TPD �. (2 AXLE VEHICLES) 'P� O NOTE: 1. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION IS SHOWN AS TRIPS PER DAY 1TPD1. E;m r PLATE 6 WEEKDAY TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION SCALE: NOT Tp SCALE TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. ENTIRE SITE DATE: 1-27-98 N:;,' [n.`.'tiaA FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JOB NUMBER. CD -019 r•�� I I r 580 TPH r .r(2 AXLE VEHICLES)1 1 r 72 TPH r (2 AXLE VEHICLES), f r,. � II r,. r'• j jr.• r,. - r, :l 1 I 705 TPH I j (2 AXLE VEHICLES) = 87 TPH (2 AXLE VEHICLES) IL_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._... .._.._ _ 1 I 90 TPH (2 AXLE VEHICLES) 1 j i _ j17 TPH (7-6 WHEEL DELIVERY 7-10 WHEEL DELIVERY 13-18 WHEEL DELIVERY) I I � I ( I 60 TPN K2 AXLE VEHICLES) 1 � 182 TPH - TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. 15 TPH i (2 AXLE VEHICLES ,,, WHEEL DELIVERY) ./A NOTE: 1. MORNING PEAK HOUR FOR COCA-COLA WILL BE BETWEEN 6:00 AM AND 7:00 AM. 2. MORNING PEAK HOUR FOR THE REMAINING OFFICE SITES WILL BE OETwEEN 7:00 AM AND 8:00 AM. 1. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION IS SHOWN AS TRIPS PER HOUR (TPH). �•• I I 101 TPH -'(2 AXLE VEHICLES)I 494 TPH �.•� (2 AXLE VEHICLES)i �I 1 I 122 TPH ` 1 i (2 AXLE VEHICLES) 595 TPH (2 AXLE VEHICLES) 1 I I •- - 70 TPH (2 AXLE VEHICLES) I � I 1 i I j � I i H i - .. 415 TPH k2 AXLE VEICLESJ (21-2 AXLE VEHICLES 7-6 WHEEL DELIVERY = 7-10 WHEEL DELIVERY I 3-18 WHEEL DELIVERY) 85 TPH 9irH S2A.� �.�HIGh1<S>_ _.. _.. WHEEL DtLIVERY)_.._.._.._ _.. NOTE: 1. AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR FOR COCA-COLA WILL BE BETWEEN 3:00 PM AND 4:00 PM. 2. AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR FOR THE REMAINING OFFICE SITES WILL 8E BETWEEN 5:00 AM AND 6:00 AM. 3. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION IS SHOWN AS TRIPS PER HOUR (TPH). 01� AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR PLATE- F r iV � Y; SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 4 �t , , TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. ENTIRE SITE DATE:1-27-98 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JCB NUMBER=CD-019 APPENDIX A NEW COCA-COLA BOTTLING FACILITY VEHICLE TYPE12:0- 2 AXEL VEHICLES - -- - 2 ROUTE DELIVERY 6 WHEEL STRAIGHT _ _ _ _ ROUTE DELIVERY 10 WHEEL SEMI ROUTE DELIVERY 18 WHEEL SEMI 45' TRAILER TRANSPORT 18" WHEEL SEMI 45' TRAILER TOTAL -- __ _ -- ----- ---- -- ---- - --- --- -- TOTAL 7 -------- - - 3 -- - 27 216 - 12:OOPM 6:OOAM -- ARRIVALS_ - - - - - -- - ------------ - -- 5:00-12:OOPM 6:00-7:00 AM 7:00-8:00 AM 8:00 AM -3:00 PM 3 00-4:0OPM 4:00-5 00 PM 9 - -- - - 90 42 10 21 -- - - - -- -- -- 7 -----"-- 3 9 3 93 __ 1 10 43 20 - 9 - 47 ---- - --- - 4 _4 DEPARTURES - VEHICLE TYPE __ TOTAL --2 AXEL VEHICLES ---- -- - - - ROUTE DELIVERY 6 WHEEL STRAIGHT ----- -- - ------ ROUTE DELIVERY 10 WHEEL SEMI ROUTE DELIVERY 18 WHEEL SEMI 45TRAILER ------------------------------------------- TRANS_PORT 18" WHEEL SEMI 45' TRAILER TOTAL - --- ------ - - - .. --- - 12:00PM-6:00AM 6:00-7:00 AM 7:00-8:00 AM 8:00 AM -3:00 PM 3:00-4;OOPM 70-------- -- 70 4:00-5:00 PM --.-- 66 5:00-12:OOPM --- 5 5 11 -- - -- 19 30 15 7 7 3 32 10 3 0 13 172 7 7 -- _ 3 _27 216 APPENDIX B TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS WORKSHEET FOR GENERAL TERRAIN SEGMENTS Existing Site Identification:Route 651 (Rt. 469-Rt. 652) Date: 1/27198 Time: Name: Steve Patton Checked by: I. GEOMETRIC DATA 0Shoulder ________________ NORTH Shoulder 2 21 2 ft Design Speed: 35 mph %No Passing: 100 0% ft Terrain (L,R,M�- ft Segment Length: 0. 35 Mi 11. TRAFFIC DATA Total Volume, Both Dir. 136 vph Directional Distribution: 70/30 Flow Rate= Volume - PHF 156 = 136 _ 0_87 Traffic Composition: 5 %T, 0 %RV %B PHF: 0.81 III. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SF, = 2,800 X (v/c), X fd X fw X fHv fHv =1 / 11 + PT(ET-1) + PR(ER-1) + PB(EB-1)] LOS SF = 2,800 X (v/c) X fd X f- X fHv Table 8-1 Table 8-4 Table 8-5 1 PT ET 1 Table 8-6 PR ER Table 8-6 Pa EB Table 8-6 A 67 2,800 0.04 0.89 0.72 0.95 .0J 2.0 0 2.2 0 1.8 B 270 2,800 0.16 0.89 0.72 0.94 D.0 2.2 0 1 2.5 0 2.0 C 540 2,800 0.32 0.89 0.72 0.94 .05 2.2 0 2.5 0 2.0 D 972 2,800 0.57 0.89 0.72 .05 2.0 0 1.6 0 1.6 E 12,012 2,800 1 1.00 0.89 0.85 0.95 ..05 2.0 0 1.6 0 1.6 IV. COMMENTS Flow Rate 156 vph LOS = B Assume 70%/30% directional distribution. DHV = AADT x K where AADT = 908, K = 0.15 DHV = 908 x 0.15 = 136 VDH TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS M WORKSHEET FOR GENERAL TERRAIN SEGMENTS Future Site Identification: Ro u te 651 (Rt. 469 -Rt. 652) Date: 1/27/98 Time: Name: Steve Patton Checked bv: I. GEOMETRIC DATA Shoulder 2 ft Design Speed: 35 mph % No Passing: 100 % ---------------- NORTH ft Terrain (L,R,M): Shoulder - 2 ft Segment Length. 0.35 mi U. TRAFFIC DATA Total Volume, Both Dir. 737 vph Directional Distribution: 70/30 Flow Rate = Volume _ PHF Traffic Comosition: 5 %T, 0 %RV -P--% B 792 = 737 - 0.93 PHF: 0. �3 III. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SF; = 2,800 X (v/c), X fd X fw X fH„ fHV =1 / [1 + PT(ET-1) + PRIER -1)+ Ps(Es-1)] LOS SF = 2,800 X (v/c) X fd X f- X fH„ PT ET PR ER PB EB Table 8-1 Table 8-4 Table 8-5 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 A 68 2,800 0.04 0.89 0.72 0.95 D.051 2.0 0 1 2.2 0 1.8 B 270 2,800 0.16 0.89 0.72 0.94 D.05I 2.2 0 2.5 10 12.0 C 540 2,800 0.32 0.89 0.72 0.94 h.051 2.2 0 2.5 0 J2.0 D 972 2,800 0.57 0.89 0.72 0.95 D.051 2.0 0 1.6 0 1.6 E 2,012 2,800 1.00 0.89 0.85 0.95 .051 2.0 0 1 1.6 0 11.6 IV. COMMENTS Flow Rate 792 vph LOS = D Assume 70%/30% directional distribution. DHV = AADT x K where AADT = 4,911, K = 0.15 DHV = 4,911 x 0.15 = 737 TWO-l..NNE HIGHWAYS WORKSHEET FOR GENERAL TERRAIN SEGMENTS Existing Route 652 Site Identification. -(From Rt. 628 to Rt. 651) Date: 1/27/98 Time: Name: Steve Patton Checked by: 1.GEOMETRIC DATA. \. Shoulder 2 ft Design Speed. 35 Inph ---------------- % No Passing: 100 oio NORT♦♦♦H 20 ft Terrain (L,R,M): � Shoulder 2 ft Segment Length: 0.40 mi U. TRAFFIC DATA Total Volume, Both Dir. 135 vph Directional Distribution: 70/30 Rate Volume 87 Traffic Composition: 5 %T, 0 %RV D 155 - 0 - - PHF: 0.87 -%B III. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SF, = 2,800 X (v/c), X fd X fw X fHv fHv = 1 / (1 + PT(ET-1) + PR(ER-1) + PB(EB-1)] LOS SF = 2,800 X (v/c) X fd X f- X fHv PT ET PR ER PB EB Table 8-1 Table 8-4 Table 8-5 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 A 64 2,800 0.04 0.89 0.68 0.95 0.0 2.0 0 2.2 0 1.8 B 255 2,800 0.16 0.89 0.68 0.94 0.0 2.2 0 1 2.5 0 2.0' C 510 2,800 0.32 0.89 0.68 0.94 0,0 2,2 .0 2.5 0 12.0 D 917 2,800 0.57 0.89 1 0.68 0.95 0.0 2.0 0 1.6 10 11.6 E 11,9181 2,800 1 1.00 0.89 10.81 10.93 0.0j 2.0 0 1.6 0 11.6 IV. COMMENTS Flow Rate 153 vph LOS = B Assume 70%/30% directional distribution. DHV = AADT x K where AADT = 898, K = 0.15 DHV = 898 x 0.15 = 135 VDH TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS WORKSHEET FOR GENERAL TERRAIN SEGMENTS Future Site Identification: Route 652 (Rt. 628-Rt.651) Date: 1/27/98 Time: Name: Steve Patton Checked by: I. GEOME'T'RIC DATA Shoulder 2 ft Design Speed: No Passing: 35 0 mph bio ---------------- NORTH 20ft Terrain (L,R,M): Shoulder �-ft Segment Length: mi II. TRAFFIC DATA Total Volume, Both Dir. 1386 vph Directional Distribution: 70/30 F1474ate p F 1386 e Traffic ComOpTition: 5 %T, 0 %RV, %B - 0. - _ PHF: III. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SF, = 2,800 X (v/c); X fd X fw X fHv fHV = i / [1 + PT(ET-1) + PR(ER-1) + PB(EB-1)] LOS SF = 2,800 X (v/c) X fd X f- X fHv PT ET PR ER PB EB Table 8-1 Table 8-4 Table 8-5 1 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 A 64 2,800 1 0.04 0.89 0.68 0.95 .05 2.0 0 2.2 B 255 1 2,800 10.16 0.89 0.68 0.94 D.05 2.2 0 I 2.5 0 2.0 C 510 I 2,800 0.32 0.89 0.68 0.94 .05 2.2 0 2.5 0 2.0 D 917 2,800 1 0.57 10.89 0.68 0.95 D.05 2.0 0 1.6 0 1.6 E 1,9171 2.800 11.00 10.89 0.81 11 0.95 D. 2.0 0 1 1.6 0 I 1.6 IV. COMMENTS Flow Rate 1474 vph LOS = E Assume 70%/30% directional distribution. DHV = AADT x K where AADT = 11,553, K = 0.12 DHV = 11,553 x 0.12 = 1386 VDH 1 TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS S 1 WORKSHEET FOR GENERAL TERRAIN SEGMENTS Existing Route 652 Site Identification: (From Rt. 651 to Rt. 11) Date: 1/27/98 Time: Name: Steve Patton Checked by: L GEOME-RIC DATA Shoulder 435 ft Design Speed: 100 mph ________________ %No Passing: % NORTH 24 ft Terrain (L,R,M): Shoulder 4 ft Segment Length: 0.25 mi U. TRAFFIC DATA Total Volume, Both Dir. 469 vph Directional Distribution: 50/50 Flow Rate= VoIume _ PHF Traffic Composition: 10 %T, 0 %RV Q%B 515 = 469 - 0.91 PHP: 0.91 M. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SF; = 2,800 X (v/c)i X fd X f,,, X fH„ fH„ =1 / 11 + PT(ET-1) + PR(ER-1) + PB(EB-1)] LOS SF = 2,800 X (v/c) X fd X f- X fHv ET PR ER PB EB Table 8-1 Table 8-4 Table 8-5 8-6 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 A 86 2,800 0.04 1.00 0.81 0.91 4Table 2.0 0 2.2 0 1.8 B 323 2,800 0.16 1.00 0.81 0.89 2.2 0 2.5 1 01 2.0 C 646 2,800 10.32 1.00 0.81 0.89 0.1 2.2 0 2.5 1 01 2.0 D 1,176 2,800 10.57 1.00 0.81 0.91 .10 2.0 I 0 1 1.6 ( 0 1.6 E 11,7841 2,800 1 1.00 1 1.00 0.70 0.91 .10 2.0 1 0 1.6 0 1.6 IV COMMENTS Flow Rate 469 vph LOS = C Assume 50%/50% directional distribution for G.E. shift work. DHV = AADT x K where AADT = 3128, K = 0.15 DHV = 3,128 x 0.15 = 469 VDH TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS S-1 i WORKSHEET FOR GENERAL TERRAIN SEGMENTS Future Site Identification: Route 652 (Rt. 651 -Rt. 11) Date: 1/27/98 Time: Name: Steve Patton Checked by: L GEOMETRIC DATA Q)%Shouldereft Design Speed: 35 mph No Passing: 100 ____________ NORTH 24 ft Terrain (L,R,M): L Shoulder 4 ft Segment Length: 0.25 mi U. TRAFFIC DATA Total Volume, Both Dir. 2134 vph Directional Distribution: 50/50 Flow Rate = Volume _ PHF Traffic Composition: 5 %T, 0 %RV Q%B 2223 = 2134 - 0_96 PHF: 0.96 III. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SF, = 2,800 X (v/c); X fd X fw X fH„ fH„ =1 / [1 + PT(ET-1) + PR(ER-1) + PB(EB-I)) LOS SF = 2,800 X (v/c) X fd X fW X fHV PT ET PR ER PB EB Table 8-1 Table 8-4 Table 8-5 1 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 A 92 2,800 1 0.04 1.00 0.81 0.95 .05 2.0 0 2.2 0 1.8 B 341 2,800 0.16 1.00 0.81 0.94 D.05 2.2 0 C 1 689 2,800 0.32 1.00 0.81 0.94 .05 2.2 0 2.5 0 2.0 D 1,228 2,800 0.57 1.00 0.81 0.95 .05 2.0 0 1.6 0 1.6 E 1,862 I 2,800 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.95 0.05 2.0 0 1.6 0 1.6 IV. COMMENTS Flow Rate 2223 vph LOS = E Assume 50%/50% directional distribution for G.E. shift work. DHV = AADT x K where AADT = 17,786 K = 0.12 DHV = 17,786 x 0.12 = 2,134 VDH TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS WORKSHEET FOR GENERAL TERRAIN SEGMENTS Existing Site Identification: Route 11 ( S.C.L. - Rt. 37) Date: 1/27/98 Time: Name: -Steve Patton Checked by: I. GEOMETRIC DATA Shoulder 4 ft Design Speed.--,, --.-_mph ---------------- No Passing. % NORTH 24 ft Terrain (L,R,M): Shoulder 4 ft Segment Length: mi 11. TRAFFIC DATA Total Volume, Both Dir. 1,950 vph Directional Distribution: 50/50 Flow Rate = Volume _ PHF Traffic Composition: 5 %T, 0 %RV Q%B 2031 = 1950 _ Qa6 PHF: 0.96 III. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SF, = 2,800 X (v/c), X fd X f- X fHv fH„ = 1 / (1 + PT(ET-1) + PR(ER-1) + PB(EB-1)] LOS SF = 2,800 X (v/c) X fd X f", X fH„ PT ET PR ER PB EB Table 8-1 Table 8-4 Table 8-5 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 A 98 2,800 0.04 1.00 0.92 0.90 .0 2.0 0 2.2 0 1.8 B 387 2,800 0.16 1.00 0.92 0.88 .05 2.2 0 2.50 2.0 C 775 2,800 0.32 1.00 0.92 0.88 .05 2.2 0 2.5 0 2.0 D 1,395 2,800 0.57 1.00 0.92 1 0.90 .05 2.0 0 1.6 0 1.6 E 2,580 2,800 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.90 .05 2.0 0 1.6 01 1.6 IV. COMMENTS Flow Rate 2031 vph LOS = E Assume 50°0/50% directional distribution. DHV = AADT x K where AADT = 13,000 VPD, K = 0.15 for level terrain DHV = 13,000 x 0.15 = 1,950 VDH TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS WORKSHEET FOR GENERAL TERRAIN SEGMENTS Future Site Identification: Route 11 (S.C.L.-Rt. 37) Date: 1/27/98 Time: Name: Steve Patton. Checked by: I. GEOMETRIC DATA TShoulder 4 ft Design Speed: 35 mph % No Passing: 100 % -------------- NORTH _ 24 ft Terrain (L,R,M): L Shoulder 4 ft Segment Length: mi U. TRAFFIC DATA Total Volume, Both Dir. 2766 vph Directional Distribution: 50/50 Flow Rate = Volume _ PHF Traffic Composition: 10 %T, 0 % RV, Q%B 2881 = 2766 _ 0_96 PHF: 0.96 M. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS 1 SF; = 2,800 X (v/c), X fd X fw X fH„ fHv =1 / [1 + PT(ET-1) + PR(ER-1) + PB(EB-1)] LOS SF = 2,800 X (v/c) X fd X fw X fHV PT ET PR ER PB EB Table 8-1 Table 8-4 Table 8-5 I Table 8-6 Table 8-6 Table 8-6 A 98 2,800 0.04 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.05 2.0 0 2.2 0 1.8 B 387 2,800 0.16 1.00 0.92 0.94 P.05 2.2 0 2.5 0 2.0 C 775 2,800 0.32 1.00 0.92 0.94 0.05 2.2 0 2.5 0 2.0 D 1,395 2,800 0.57 1.00 0.92 0.95 0.05 2.0 0 1.6 0 1.6 E 12,580 2,800 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 0.97 0.95 P.05 2.0 0 1.6 0 1.6 IV. COMMENTS Flow Rate 2881 vph LOS = E Assume 50%/50% directional distribution. DHV = AADT x K where AADT = 27,658, K = 0.10 DHV = 27,658 x 0.10 = 2,766 I PC REVIEW DATE: 04/01/98 BOS REVIEW DATE: 04/22/98 REZOIvi1gG APPLICATION 4005-98 LINWOOD AND ELIZABETH RITTER To Rezone 8.264 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: This property is located on the western side of Double Church Road (Route 641), approximately one-half mile south of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 86-A-2113 !C - PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA, Rural Areas District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North - Zoned: RP, Residential Performance Use: Residential (Woodside Estates II) South - Zoned: RP, Residential Performance Use: Residential (Woodside Estates II) RA, Rural Areas Residential East - Zoned: RA, Rural Areas Use: Residential West - Zoned: RP, Residential Performance Use: Residential (Woodside Estates II) PROPOSED USE: Single Family Residential Lots REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Trans ortation: No objection to the subdivision of this property. This section of street is currently not in the State's Secondary Road System. However, all entrance design and drainage features must meet state requirements if the street is to be eligible for acceptance. A complete set of construction plans will be required for review. (See attached letter from VDOT to Mr. Richard Edens dated February S, 1998.) Linwood & Elizabeth Ritter, REZ #005-98 Page 2 March 23, 1998 Frederick Co. Sanitation Authoritv: Water and sewer are available to this property. Public Works: The County Engineer has expressed concerns with additional traffic on Double Church Road, and has stated that the location of sewer and the development of storm water management need to be addressed at the subdivision design stage. (See attached letter from E. Harvey Strawsnyder dated 1-28-98.) Frederick Co. Fire and Rescue: No comments. Stephens Citv Vol. Fire and Rescue: The Stephens City Fire Company does not endorse this application due to the net fiscal impact amount demonstrated by the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model, as well as the fashion in which the applicant has proffered to disburse these funds. (See attached letter from Gregory Locke, Chief, dated 3-3-98.) Frederick Co. Dept. of Parks & Rec.: I would recommend that current impact information be reviewed when considering the proposed proffers for Parks and Recreation services. I have attached the most up-to-date information using the proffer model and current Capital Improvement Plan project estimates. (See attached print-out.) County Attorney: All amounts to be paid to the County, not to Fire and Rescue, otherwise, form of proffers appears satisfactory. Frederick Co. Public Schools: The School Administration feels that this rezoning will have an impact on current and future school needs and asks that this concern be taken into consideration when this application is considered. (See attached letter from Thomas Sullivan, Admin. Asst to the Superintendent, dated 1-26-98.) Planning & Zonine: 1) Site History An 8.264 -acre subdivision of a 41.45 -acre tract was approved by Frederick County in April 1986, which established this parcel. The residual land was rezoned by the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 1996, and is currently under construction as Woodside Estates II. 2) Location The 8.264 -acre tract is located within the Frederick County Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan states that any new suburban residential development served by sewer Linwood & Elizabeth Ritter, REZ #005-98 Page 3 March 23, 1998 and water will have to be located in the UDA. The 8.264 -acre tract is adjacent to existing and proposed residential development, including Woodside Estates II and single-family structures on land that is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District is located within close proximity of this tract, which includes the Wymer tract located directly across Double Church Road. 3) Site Suitability The 8.264 -acre tract does not contain areas of steep slopes, woodlands, flood plain, or prime agricultural soils. The applicant has identified a small area of natural stormwater retention on site; however, this area is not identified on the National Wetlands Inventory Map. The site does not contain structures of historic significance, nor is the property within an area designated as a potential historic district by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. The site has frontage along Double Church Road, which is defined as a major collector road on the VDOT Functional Classification Map in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. This type of road does not permit individual lot access; therefore, all lots would be served through one connection with Double Church Road. The site can be served by public water and sewer, and is proposed to tie into eight -inch water and sewer lines that will serve Woodside Estates II. The FCSA has verified that service and capacity can be accommodated. 4) Potential Impacts a) Traffic: The applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis for this rezoning which provides 1995 average daily traffic count information (ADT), additional ADT based on the proffered density, peak hour trip generation, and turning movement assumptions. The net impact of this rezoning would account for an additional 180 vehicle trips per day, which would increase the ADT on Double Church Road by 12%. The peak hour trip generation would account for 21 vehicle trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at the proffered density. The applicant has estimated that 90%, or 162 of the 180 ADT, will proceed to the north to the signalized intersection with Fairfax Pike. Staff has been advised by VDOT representatives that they do not feel this will decrease the Level Of Service at this intersection. b) Community Facilities and Services: The Capital Facilities Impact Model was applied to this rezoning proposal on October 21, Linwood & Elizabeth Ritter, REZ 9005-98 Page 4 March 23, 1998 1997. The results of this model run demonstrated a negative fiscal impact to public schools, parks and recreation, and fire and rescue services. 5) Impact Statement/Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney. The applicant has proffered that a maximum of 20 single-family detached residential lots will be developed on this 8.264 -acre tract. The applicant has proffered a General Development Plan which demonstrates one access point onto Double Church Road and calls for the dedication of right-of-way, the provision of turn lanes, and the provision of other road improvements required by VDOT. Finally, the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution that is consistent with the results of the Capital Facility Impact Model. This monetary contribution is proffered to be made payable to Frederick County and allocated to public schools, parks and recreation, and the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 04/01/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that new suburban residential development must be located within the UDA, and should only be approved when roads and other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been provided. The applicant has proffered to improve Double Church Road as required by VDOT, as well as dedicate necessary right-of-way. Double Church Road is delineated on the WATS as requiring improvements to correct geometric deficiencies on a two-lane typical section. The dedication of right-of-way will assist with this project in the future. Adequate sewer and water capacity are available to serve the proffered 20 lots, and the monetary contribution will mitigate the negative fiscal impacts to capital facilities. The proximity of the 8264 -acre tract to the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District, as well as agricultural land uses, is of concern to staff. Residents within the agricultural community and the suburban residential community have expressed concerns to the Board of Supervisors during the last few years which have included topics such as land use compatibility, nuisances, the need for buffers, and land use. Staff believes that it would be appropriate to have the developer disclose the location of the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District and permitted land uses in the rural areas within all property deeds and sales literature. Staff believes the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the impacts associated with the requested rezoning. O:\AGENDAS\REZONE\COI I SIENTS\R=R. REZ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG RESIDENCY CGPALSSS!GI:E. 14031 0'-I'VALLEY BIKE P 0.60:278 =DiNBURG, VA 22824-0278 February 5,1998 Mr. Richard Edens C/O Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Dear Richard: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENG!NEER TELE (54C) 954-5600 FAX(540)9&!-56G7 Ref: Linwood D. Ritter Property Subdivision Rezoning Request Route 641 (Double Church Road) Frederick County We have reviewed the preliminary information on the referenced project and have the following comments: Under Section E. Drainage, Ritter Impact Statement, on Page 4 at the conclusion of Section E. Drainage a statement should be added as follows, after the words "for the site": However, no usage of VDOT roadztnay embankment can be allowed to retain/detain a stormzvater runoff. Should you have any questions, please call. Since ely;I y Barry J. Sweitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Norman K. Sparks Trans. Asst. Resident Engineer BJS/rf Enclosure xc: Transportation Engineer Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. Kris Tierney ti January 28, 1998 Mr. Richard Edens Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Rezoning request for Linwood P. Ritter Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Edens: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the rezoning request for 8.264 acres owned by Linwood and Elizabeth Ritter. Based on this review, we understand that the applicant plans to develop the property for 20 single family dwellings and is requesting a zoning change from RA to R.P. The impact statement has adequately addressed the pertinent issues in question. However, we recommend that the Virginia Department of Transportation be consulted again to determine when Route 641 (Double Church Road) will be upgraded to carry the present traffic flows. The proposed development will only add to an existing problem. Any proposed improvements should be extended to incorporate the proposed entrance to the 20 single family dwellings. The proffer statement appears to have adequately addressed solid waste issues. However, it is not clear how these numbers were derived. The preliminary layout (Addendum "A") shows 20 lots as referenced in the impact narrative. It appears that an existing seiner easement will prevent the development of Lot 1. This issue should be addressed during the subdivision design phase. .Stormwater management issues should also be addressed in detail during the subdivision design phase. Based on our knowledge of on-site geological conditions, we recommend pre - development "C" values on the order at 0.3 to 0.35. Post -development values will most probably be on the order of 0.55 depending on the actual amount of open space area. 107 North bent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Linwood Ritter Rezoning Page 2 January 28, 1998 Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harvey E. Str'a snyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Frederick County Planning and Zoning file STEPHENS CITY FIRE CO., INC. P. O. BOX 253 STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 March 3, 1998 Greenway Engineering, Inc. Attn: Richard Edens 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Dear Mr. Edens: As per our previous conversations, I had some concerns over the submitted Proffer Statement, as it pertained to disbursement of Fire and Rescue Funds for the Rezoning of Property Parcels: 86-((A))-21, 86-((A))-22, 86 -((A)) -71A, 86 -((A)) -72A and 86 -((A)) - 72B (Linwood Ritter Property) located off of Double Church Road in Stephens City, VA. I have attached a copy of your submitted Proffer Statement, of which, includes the "Monetary Impact of Development". As the Fire Chief of Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company, Inc. I cannot, in good conscience, approve a plan that provides $12.56 to the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Department, as compared to $2,534.21 to the Schools, $225.31 to Law Enforcement, $167.25 to "Fire and Rescue Services", $157.95 to Parks and Recreation, $206.73 to Solid Waste and Public Works, and $615.55 to "Other Services". My first concern is that the figure of $167.25, of which, is earmarked for "Fire and Rescue Services", actually goes into the Frederick County Fire and Rescue system (in general). This money is distributed to all ten Frederick County Fire and Rescue stations in varying fashions and amounts. It is the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company, Inc. that would be impacted most, being responsible for primary fire and rescue services for this newly proposed subdivision. As such, it should be the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Department that benefits most from the increased response burden. In addition to my aforementioned concern, the cost, to our Department, for the response to one Basic Life Support Emergency Medical Call is approximately $150., with a single response to a Fire incident costing the Department approximately $350. With this in mind, $12.56 will rarely cover the fuel costs for one single incident. In recent years I have watched our calls for emergency service grow from under one hundred calls annually to over 1200 calls a year. With the increased number of calls, also comes the need to replace equipment more frequently. The cost of a Basic Ambulance is now around $90,000. and a piece of Fire Apparatus may easily reach $350,000. As a Volunteer Department, our Department relies heavily on Volunteer fund-raisers and contributions from Frederick County in order to continue to provide the services that Frederick County residents deserve. Our personnel and equipment cannot feasibly keep up with the increased population and emergency response demand without some type of additional support. 1, like other volunteers in the Frederick County Fire and Rescue System, look for some relief in an updated and equitable Proffer System. Until such time that that System is placed in service, I cannot approve submissions under the current guidelines. I apologize for any inconvenience that this may create, but I hope that you will work with the Fire and Rescue Services, and Frederick County, to implement a new and revised Proffer Model. If you should have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 540-869-4576. Sincerely, Gregory L. Locke, Chief Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company, Inc. Attachments: 1 Proffer Summary Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department Based on the 1997_98 CIp 8/21/97 Impact Impact ac' . Tennis Courts Parkland in Western F.C. Playground, Open Play and Picnic Areas Frederick Count y �'tandards 1/2000 pop 1/52,000 pop 3/2000 pop Based on 2.5 per Housing UnitUnitNe .125$ .0048% .125$ Based on 3.5 per Housing .175$ .0067% .175$ Current 26 1 26 Current Need plv 9 0 20 Current Facility Need Gan CosUnit t 17 63,650 1 1,154,772 6 180,847 Request Currently CIp on the Facility CTn Lis r 11 700,152 1 1,154,772 4 723,386 Proffer Per Housing [nit 2.5 80 55 226 Proffer Per Housing II-jit 3. 111 77 316 Basketball Courts Softball Fields Baseball Field Renovation Field House Support Facilities Maintenance Areas Soccer Fields Indoor Pool Stage Areas Skateboard Park 1/2000 pop 1/5000 pop 1/5000 pop 1/52,000 pop 1/25,000 pop 1/25,000 pop 1/5,000 pop 1/52,000 pop 1� ,25,000 pop 1/52,000 pop .125$ .05$ ,05$ .0048$ .01$ .01$ .05$ .0048% .01$ .0048/$ .175$ .07$ 07$ .0067$ .014$ .014% .07$ .0067$ .014$ .0067$ 26 10 13 1 1 2 10 1 2 1 5 6 9 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 21 4 4 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 69,765 235,348 102,600 1,542,000 31,537 168,539 375,878 1,953,200 323,997 200,000 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 139,530 470,696 411,200 1,542,000 31,537 168,539 1,127,634 1,953,200 323,997 200,000 87 118 51 74 3 17 168 gq 32 122 165 72 103 4 24 263 131 45 Total Impact Per Unit 1,025 1,433 8/21/97 Sample Information: Sample Computation: number Computation Check: Soccer Field - 1/5000 population costing $375,878 *Development - 1 unit x 2.5 per unit - 2.5 population *.05% is the potential impact that one unit, or 2.5 people, will have on a facility that has a standard of 1/5000 population. 2.5 is equal to .05% of 5000. (2.5 divided by 5000% a .05%). $375,878 facility cost x .05%, which is equivalent to the percentage of potential impact $187.939 per unit times the of housing units - cost per development. Cost per unit divided people per unit 5 individual development cost. $1877..939 divided by 2.5 impact cost times standard for facility a total facility $75.1756 x 5000 - $375,878. 1997-98 Capital Improvement Plan Total - $9,439,405. Notes: Bicycle facility has been funded and eliminated from proffer summary. Playground at Clearbrook park has been funded and eliminated from this summary. Support facilities at Clearbrook park have been partially completed and funding requirements have been reduced. Each project has been adjusted by 2.3%, which is the reported annual inflation rate from the 1996-97 plan to the current plan (1997-98). Frederick County Public Schools 1415 Amherst Street Post Office Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 Telephone: (540) 662-3888 — FAX (540) 722-2788 Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent January 26, 1998 Mr. Richard Edens Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 REF: Rezoning Comments Dear Richard: I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a parcel of land of approximately 8.264 acres from the present RA to RP. It is my understanding the land to be rezoned is located at the following location: West Side of Double Church Road (Route 641) about 0.6 mile South of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), East of the Town of Stephens City. It is our understanding the proposed rezoning of this parcel will allow the construction of 20 single family homes. We believe the proposed rezoning of the property listed above will have an impact on current and future school needs and should be considered during the review process. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate in contacting me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, T Thomas Sullivan Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent cc: R. Thomas Malcolm, FCPS Rezoning #005-98 PIN: 86—A -21B Linwood & Elizabeth Ritter This Map was produced by Frederick Co. Planning & Development 46 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant. All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: _ Address: Winchester. Va „_.22602_ 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Linwood D. Ritter Telephone: 540-869-4123 Address: 746 Double Church Road Stephens -City, Va. 22655 - 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Telephone: q4 0 - 6 (,;, -,4, S S 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments x Plat X Fees g Deed to property x Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement ;rR 4 Z". :{ 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential B) Proposed Use of the Property: Ra G i i Pn r i a i 7. Adjoining Property: 86-((A))-21 86-((A))-22 86 -((A)) -71A 86 -((A)) -72A ,86 -_((A)) -72B Proposed Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential RP, RA RA RA RA 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): West side of Double Church Road (Route 641) W • u . • • ;. East of Town of Stephens City. Address = #746 Double Church Rd. 12 I Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model 11 In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. OtherW se, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 8 6 - ( (A) ) - 21 B Magisterial: Opeauon High School: Sherando Fire Service: Co -11 -Stephens City Middle School: Aylor Rescue Service:Co . 11 -Stephens City Elementary School:Middletown 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zonin Zoning Requested PP 8.264 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed Number ot'Units Proposed Single Family homes: 20 Townhome: 0 Multi -Family: 0 Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Foota of Proposed Uses Office: 0 Service Station: 0 Retail: 0 Manufacturing: 0 Restaurant: 0 Warehouse: 0 ` Other: 0 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): -XIj- Date: 9 Date: Owner(s): Date: 3 - 9? Date: dS- •'•-'.> 14 �`"`' Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office, of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. V-1 1s VEST IA F A ; SDR G U pLT' f r 's • O t ;' > e ; Q `o`'Q L �� s /r Iy\��Pif atm L1 O i f' H? Af KE40E }� `' T'';~ � ( ,� t Df v \�, ..•\ f � Roe .,ee� S� ,,e eT �I `�iJ' Shane o h Vlr a find 'Q Dq v - -1 r A FR C x po i 640 O� i�. H)tgOgl E4 1PRp 9 q ' 647 ' O X090 ? �y /J00 I r�•a ■ E. Y /_-- \p--P\E 4 O ,°0 CVC�`o� ° FOJ ,r 'L 64 i e° K oe, 'b SpO� Y�`EPO�Oq may \ MACEDONq AINUT--._ — v CrC OS s S OF CITY - r 9 y SzEK-- - - y� Bass -Hoover Q� c 1 E r o i/ f O ��SOMN ` v(°MNEY 4R'y .t�O GQ' CT IED ALam ! t < Y N mii OJ a /t- /tCOAR �yfrW Z� epQ/ `°q r0 `�l 64 / QLK10WNl1` fjl i ..gam /pDf f9i Oi% ��Po V Bf � �•�'',Rorber( t 631 S� Rapt V\' , lepup oep �t _— -- ,_ • .. ... diriry,o ti/Y x �fq \\°oo b 9 oaL �y1: �� oe Balliields �^ °f o e� DRpa ` o O�rP -- Boat Rentals - ;/ — - - - pSc� 9 Q - - ._.._-- ---- Fishing �� i 641Course— Are? - - �r �¢ VDOT I e` o oe yS Sr�� fitness Course --- �� <. Area Hde 0 ve �eo SHERANDO frisbee Golf f� �L It / oQ'1°D o0D 2774 a Qw Picnicking f� Ch of Exit- EwwJ'm �_ -- A 307: wo SIDf In (Mf4o Sha fir // 1 77 FAi o@ Shelters ndsArm p / `\ RFAx _ Swimming P Stephens City �r 636 Mennonite-- tr._ � AIOG flElD------------�--- ' Sherando AVE K P 1 TAS o f \ J4r 7400°J J Z' ey TRICK–�1d__ �.9 t0 y -- Q 641 S T E a 4 �. .o H/jfifl0 W CEDAR A j 9 S - -ti -- i Frien lip 'q7 35 . t A k0alfYlew I 640 ! � 641� "O T:, S; . �'APPPOVED Arc 13 P 4. 300 200 00 loo .� 0 tiD ZOO RA ; 8.264 ACRES _ N • '� �:` ;, • < . i TO BE REZONED RP, ell u oto J < 4 it" bo ' ore` ERIxOD N 09 CZONJE RA • W - A`� , 1� P j— Iry ' O � � • X' ZONING E30�DARY x y a= _ `tai+g CMO. soo**. 'J1'.W ' o u u d 212.05 A ac 212.17' S03'32'06'W- l2L 93 1 215.81' may. ®mss�— VA. ROUTE 641 .�. . L..: ZONE RA !F' ' REZONING REQUEST PROFFER PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 86 -((A)) -21B LINWOOD D. RITTER AND ELIZABETH A. RITTER Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 Et Seq., of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant herebv proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia shall approve rezoning application # for the rezoning of approximately 8.264 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District to the Residential Performance (RP) Zoning District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick Countv Board of Supervisors in accordance with said code and zoning ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property is more particularly described as all of the land conveyed to Linwood D. Ritter and Elizabeth A. Ritter by deed from Joel O. Stowe and Lucita M. Stowe dated March 19, 1986 of record in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Deed Book 613 at Page 443. The subject property is further described by survey, attached to said deed, prepared by Lee A. Ebert and dated November 13, 1985 and is purported to contain 8.264 acres. The conditions proffered are as follows: 1. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The development of the subject property and the submission of any Master Development Plan will provide for a street layout connecting with Double Church Road, Route 641, substantially in accordance with that shown on the attached addendum "A" - preliminary layout, Linwood D. Ritter, Et Ux property. Voluntarily proffered as part of the rezoning arc improvements for turn lanes, dedication of necessary right-of-way, and other improvements deemed necessary by and as required by the Virginia Department of Transportation during the subdivision approval process in order to provide a safe entrance to the development. 2. MAXIMUM DENSITY The rezoned property shall not be subdivided into more than twenty (20) single family home lots and there shall not be constructed thereon more than (20) single family detached dwellings. There shall be no apartments, duplexes, townhouses or other multifamily dwellings constructed on the property. 3. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO OFFSET IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT The undersigned owners of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that in the event the subject property- containing approximately 8264 acres, lying on the west side of Double Churches Road (Route 641) about 0.6 mile south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) in the Opequon Magisterial District. Frederick County, Virginia is approved for rezoning from Rural Areas (RA) zoning district to Residential Performance (RP) zoning district, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, at the time a building permit is issued for each lot, the sum of Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Four Dollars and Twenty -One Cents ($39342 1) per approved lot for community services as directed in attached addendum `B" at time of issuance of each building permit. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors. administra1ors. assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County. Board of Supervisors grant this rezoning and accept the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Property Owners By' Linwood D. Ritter Elizabeth A. Ritter Commonwealth of Virginia &W/County of i- r. k k G D ' iC C To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1gi+`1 g day of Ii y. t.lr i',, 1998 by Linwood D. Ritter and Elizabeth A. Ritter. (\ f / Notary Public My Commission Expires L1 i 1 ADDENDUM "A" 9o'd� �vs'O�T-v wut:5Lt CHURCH ROAD PROJECT SUMMARY RTE. 641 TOTAL AREA = 8.264 ACRES HOUSING TYPE = SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER (10,000 SQ. FT. LOTS) TOTAL LOTS = 20 ® 10,000 SQ. FT. MIN. OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 15% CURB & GUTTER, SIDEWALKS, AND STREETLIGHTS REQUIRED. 1='RP:LIMIN.4R-�r' LAYOUT L INWOOD D. FITTER, ET UX PROPERTY OPEQUON DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA U MARK Da SCALE: 1" = 100' D. SMITH DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1997 No.0 SMI GREENWAY ENGINEERING 009 151 WINDY HILL LANE Engineers �q mpg EnginWINCHESTER, VA. 22602 Surveyors y TELEPHONE: (540) 662-4185 F and d in 1971 FAX: (540) 722-9528 SHEET 1 OF 1 i ADENDUM "B" MONETARY IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS BY CATEGORY: Schools & Education $ 3,330.60 Parks & Recreation $ 591.05 Stephens City Fire & Rescue Co. $ 12.56 Total Contribution Per Approved Lot $ 3,934.21 IMPACT STATEMENT LINWOOD D. & ELIZABETH RITTER LAND REZONING APPLILATION OCTOBER 9, 1997 This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the development of a 20 unit single family detached cluster subdivision on 8.264 acres owned by Linwood and Elizabeth Ritter. The property is located on the west side of Double Church Road (Route 641) about 0.6 miles south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), east of the Town of Stephens City and is identified as Tax Parcel 86-((A))-2113. A. SITE SUITABIL=T-,' The site is current_ -:sed for a single family farmette type residence and is composed primarily of gently rc:ting pasture. This site does not contain any areas within the 100 -year flood plain per the F.E.M.A. Flood Insurance Rate Map(Community - Panel No. 510063- 0200B). The site does not contain any ponds, streams, creeks or other well defined water courses. Site inspection does not reveal the existence of any sizable wetland areas. There does exist a small area of approximately 0. 15 acre near the southeast corner of the property which may be defined as a natural stormwater detention area and could possibly be defined as wetlands. Consulting the 1990 National Wetlands Inventory Map did not reveal the existence of any identified wetland areas within this site. Slopes on the site are gentle and rolling and range from 2 - 15% throughout. Little or no areas of slopes greater than 15% exist on the site. Ground cover is primarily fescue and other native grasses. There is currently little tree cover on the site. There are approximately 6 - 8 shade trees near the existing dwelling. However, no portion of the site would be defined as mature woodlands. The soils present on the site are classified as (1) Berks Channery Silt Loam with 2 - 7% slopes and (2) Blairton silt loam with 7 - 15% slopes per the 1987 U.S.D.A. Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia. These are moderately well -drained soils with low fertility. Neither of these soils are defined as "prime agricultural soils" by said soil survey. Depth to shale bedrock varies from 30 - 36 inches. Site inspection dic not reveal any exposed bedrock or unstable soil conditions which would create special construction hazards or difficulties. Erosion is a moderate hazard with these soils during land disturbance, but can be controlled through proper erosion and sediment control practices. The site is extremely well suited to this type of development from the perspective of impact on environmental features. There are few, if any, features present which are limited from development by the current zoning and subdivision ordinances. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The site is bounded on the north, west, and south by a single family detached cluster development recently approved for construction and known as Woodside Estates H- The type of development proposed for the subject site is nearly identical to what is currently in the initial phase of construction on the Woodside Estates II site. Within Woodside Estates H there are 5 lots which join the southern boundary of the subject site and 5 lots adjoining the northern boundary, none of which have been improved as of yet. The remainder of the adjacent land within Woodside Estates II (along the western boundaries) is designated as open space. The Carbury lot adjacent to the southeast corner of the site has one single family dwelling situated on approximately 0.90 acres. The nearest wall of said dwelling lies approximately 95 feet south of the southern boundary of the site. The property of Bartles opposite the site and across double Church Road is used for residential purposes. The nearest dwelling on said property lies approximately 75' east of the eastern boundary of the site. Dwellings on the other properties east of Double Church Road (Wymer & Thomas) are substantially further from the site. Although there will be a certain amount of noise and dust created during construction of such a project, the ultimate build -out will generate very little noise, glare, fumes, pollution odors or other nuisance factors which would negatively impact the adjacent properties. What is planned is a small, quiet residential neighborhood very similar to other developments in the vicinity. C. TRAFFIC Rezoning of the subject property will generate an impact on traffic along Double Church Road - Route 641. In order to assess this impact, existing conditions were determined. Information provided by V.D.O.T. representative Bob Childress on August 27, 1997, indicates that the latest available traffic count data was performed in 1995. At that time, Route 641, between Route 640 and Route 277, carried an actual average count of 1,523 vehicles per day. This road is identified by the county's road improvement plan as a major collector road. This will necessitate the placement of the appropriate road - efficiency buffer for development of the site. Under the site's current zoning of RA, the maximum development potential is 2 single family dwellings. This density would potentially produce 20 average trip ends per day based on the I.T.E., Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition value of 10 vpd for single family use. The rezoning of this property at the proffered density of 20 units would thus produce 180 additional vpd or a total of 200 trip ends per day at full build -out. These additional 180 vpd represent approximately a 12% increase in traffic flow based on the available data. Average peak hour trips for single family detached use by dwelling unit are described in the aforementioned I.T.E. manual. Values vary from 0.75 to 1.01 average trip ends per hour with the maximum peak hour trips being 1.012 average trip ends on weekday afternoons. Using this figure, the maximum peak hour average trip ends generated by the proffered density will be GREENWAY ENGINEERING RITTER IMPACT STATEMI•. 's i - PAGE 2 20.24. These values indicate that while there will be an increase in traffic flow as a result of the proposed rezoning; the impact will not be significant enough to severely inhibit the flow of traffic in the area. No data was available from V.D.O.T. regarding the percentage of northbound traffic versus southbound traffic on Route 6411. it is estiimnated that roughly 90% of the increased traffic created by the proposed development will travel the northern portion of Double Church Road to the intersection with Route 277 for access to the site. The remaining 10% of this traffic will travel the southern portion of Route 641 into Warren County. The inclusion of this road in the county's road improvement plan as a major collector suggests future improvements will allow this road to support greater traffic volumes. This fact leads to our conclusion that the traffic generated by the proposed rezoning will not substantially impact the local road network. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE & WATER SUPPLY The impact of this proposed development on sewage conveyance and water supply systems is based on a proffered single phase development schedule of twenty dwellings. Based on F.C.S.A. design figures of 275 GPD per single family unit, it is estimated the development will consume 5500 GPD of water from the water system and add 5500 GPD to the sewage conveyance system at full build -out. An 8" sewer main serving the adjacent Woodside Estates H development is currently under construction and will traverse the eastern portion of the subject property flowing south to the north to an existing pump station located approximately 400' north of the northern boundary of the subject property. This pump station was designed to service the subject area at a density of 3 units at 400 GPD each per acre. The proposed 20 lots result in a gross density of 2.4 units per acre. This demonstrates that the system in place will adequately handle the proposed development. The site is currently provided water by an existing well, however public water is available :o the site by two means. An 8" water main is currently in place on the east side of Doubie Church Road along the entire frontage of the property. The preferred connection is with an 8" main (to be stubbed out to the southern boundary of the subject property near the southwest corner) which will be constructed as part of the Woodside Estates II development. Use of this connection would eliminate the need to cross Double Church Road with an additional main. Mr. John Whitacre of r.C.S.A. was consulted regarding the use of this connection October 9, 1997 and at that time he confirmed this stub would have adequate capacity and pressure to serve 20 additional residences, although the Authority may require any new main to be looped through to other mains nearby within the Woodside Estates II development. y E. DR-AdNAGE Th:, elevated, gently rolling nature of the property directs natural drainage from the sit -I GREENWAY ENGINEERING RITTER IMPACT STATEMENT - PAGE 3 in numerous directions. There are no streams or well defined drainage ways currently crossing the site. The site is divided into approximately five drainage areas. The southwestern portion of the property composes the largest drainage area of approximately 3.5 acres which flows southerly into a drainage easement within Woodside Estates II. This easement carries the runoff southeasterly into a stormwater management basin "A" to be constructed which eventually releases the water into a natural drainage way leading to the southeast. Proper stormwater management measures within the proposed development will contain any increased runoff and preserve the design of the adjacent system. Natural drainage from the western portion of the property will be collected by the storm sewer system of Woodside Estates II. The northern portion of the property naturally drains northward and will be intercepted by stormwater management basin `B" within Woodside Estates II. In each case, proper stormwater management measures within the proposed development will eliminate any increased burden from being placed upon the adjacent systems under construction. The southeastern portion of the property adjacent to Double Church Road comprising approximately 1 1/3 acres drains to a low area adjacent to the road which currently forms a natural stormwater detention area with no apparent outlet. This area may require designing of an outlet structure and culvert under said road to allow the drainage to continue along its natural course to the southeast. It appears the roadway's construction forms a dam which impedes natural drainage to a maximum depth of approximately 1 - 1.5' before cresting the road. This area appears to be a good candidate for the location of stormwater management facilities for the site. F. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual per household consumption of landfill volume figure of 5.4 cubic yards. Based on the proffered density of 20 units, this development will generate approximately 108 cubic yards of solid waste annually at full build -out. The above per household figure was derived from a formula found in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition, which predicts the daily increase in landfill volume. The formula states: increase in volume in cu. vds. _ (population size) X (waste in lbm/capita-dav) (loading factor) day compacted density in lbm/cu. yd. Figures input were 1.) Population size of 53,200 persons based on the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission 1996 provisional estimate. 2.) Estimated waste volume of 5 lbm/capita-day per said reference manual. 3.) Loading factor of 1.25 for a 4:1 ratio of solid waste to cover volumes per said reference manual and 4.) Typical compacted density of 1000 lbm/cu.yd. per said reference manual. The results of this calculation are as follows: Daily Increase Volume = (53,200) (5) (1.25) = 332.5 cu.vd. 1000 day GREENWAY ENGINEERING RITTER IMPACT STATEMENT - PAGE 4 This can be extrapolated to an annual figure of approximately 121,000 cu. yd. Dividing this figure by the Lord Fairfax Planning District 1996 provisional estimate of 22,510 households in Frederick County produces the figure of 5.4 cu.yd./household annually for Frederick County. Thus the net increase in landfill volume needed to support the proposed development is estimated to be 108 cu.yd. annually. The paragraphs below detail the economic impact of this additional waste. G. HISTORIC SITES & STRUCTURES The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia identifies a structure on this property as Number 34-1257, house, Rt. 641; however, this site and structure are not included on the list of potentially significant properties as recommended by said document. There are no known historic sites or structures on adjacent properties. Therefore, the development of this property will not have any cultural impact on historic interests. H. COMMUNITY FACILITIES The figures below illustrate the economic impact on community facilities generated by the proposed development. In each category, the total impact is calculated based on the single phase development of 20 single family detached cluster units. Revenues at full build -out have been projected based on current assessed values of similar nearby properties at current tax rates. Impact on facilities has been projected based on figures derived from the 97-98 Frederick County budget and the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission 1996 provisional estimate of 22,510 households in Frederick County. In each category, a total figure was derived from the budget document which represents the Frederick County taxpayer contribution to the amounts budgeted for operating, maintenance, and personnel for each of the departments during fiscal year 1997. This figure was subsequently divided by the figure 22,510 to obtain an average per household expenditure for each category. This expenditure was then multiplied by the proffered 20 units to obtain the total annual impact at full build -out in each category. These figures do not include any capital facilities expenditures or debt service due to those items inclusion in the Planning Department's model. The projections are as follows: PROJECTED REVENUES Average unit assessed value based on 1997 estimate = $ 150,000 Current tax rate = $ .59/100 assessed value Resulting revenue = $ 885 per unit annually Total revenue for 20 units = $ 17,700 per year GREENWAY ENGINEERING RITTER IMPACT STATEMENT - PAGE 5 PROJECTED IMPACTS EDUCATION $ 24,557,557 Total county taxpayer dollars for operating, maintenance and personnel in public schools during fiscal year 1997. 22,510 households = $ 1,091 per household annually Impact of 20 additional homes = $21,820 per year POLICE PROTECTION $ 2,177,902 Total county taxpayer dollars budgeted for operating, maintenance & personnel for Police protection in fiscal year 1997 22,510 households = $ 97 per household annually Impact of 20 additional homes = $ 1.940 per year FIRE & RESCUE PROYEC77ON $ 1,622,508 Total county taxpayer dollars budgeted for operating, maintenance, and personnel for Police protection in fiscal year 1997 22,510 households = $ 72 per household annually Impact of 20 additional homes = $ 1,440 per year PARKS AND RECREATION OPERATIONS $ 1,521,989 Total county taxpayer dollars budgeted for operating, maintenance & personnel for Parks & Recreation in fiscal year 1997 22,510 households = $ 68 per household annually Impact of 20 additional homes = $ 1,360 per year SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS $ 1,997,073 Total county taxpayer dollars budgeted for Public Works operations, maintenance & personnel in fiscal year 1997 GREENWAY ENGINEERING RITTER IMPACT STATEMENT - PAGE 6 22,510 households = $ 89 per household annually Impact of 20 additional homes = $ 1,780 per year OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES $ 5,961,617 Total county taxpayer dollars budgeted for operating, maintenance & personnel in fiscal year 1997 for other services including: administration, courts, health & welfare, community college, community development and other miscellaneous services. 22,510 households = $ 265 per household annually Impact of 20 additional homes = $ 5,300 per year Total annual impact on community services of 20 additional homes = $ 33,640 per year The resultant figure above represents the total economic impact on community services operating budgets by the proposed development. Based on the fiscal year 1997 budget summary, $ 15,650,000 in local real estate tax revenues composed 29.8% of the total local revenues of $ 52,459,900. Using this percentage, it was projected that the $33,640 increase in community services expense would need to be offset by $ 10,025 in annual local real estate tax revenue. The projection of local real estate tax revenues of $ 17,700 annually demonstrates a net surplus of $ 7,675 for the proposed development. This additional revenue can be credited toward the capital facilities and debt service impact generated by the county model. These figures include all services currently funded by county tax dollars. I. OTHER IMPACTS No additional impacts are foreseen by the development of the subject property at the proffered density. GREENWAY ENGINEERING RITTER MPACT STATEMENT - PAGE 7 PC REVIEW DATE: 04/01/98 BOS REVIEW DATE: 04/22/98 REZONING APPLICATION #006-98 BORDERLINE, L.L.C. (Broadway Electric Company) To Rezone 2.67 Acres from RP (Residential Performance) to M1 (Light Industrial) LOCATION: This property is located on the south side of Airport Road (Route 645), 0.5 miles east of Front Royal Pike (Route 522). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64 -A -45F PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP, Residential Performance District Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North - Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential South - Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East - Zoned: Ml (Light Industrial) Use: Vacant West - Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Office REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to rezoning of this property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Gengration Manual_ Fifth Edition for review. Any work performed on state rights-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit Borderline, L.L.C., REZ 9006-98 Page 2 March 23, 1998 is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Public Works: The proposed rezoning request is approved as submitted. Please contact this office for information related to the design of the existing stormwater retention basin. Frederick Co. Fire and Rescue: No comments. Greenwood Vol. Fire and Rescue: The close proximity to RP should bring to your attention that landscaping probably will not be enough buffer between the two uses. Also, with RP on the east, how does light industrial fit in between RP's? Historic Resources Advisory Board: No significant historic resources appear to be adjacent to the subject parcel. County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in appropriate language. Winchester Regional Airport: Subject site is located within the horizontal zone of the Airport District. The Federal Aviation Administration requires submittal of an FAA Form 7460 for evaluation of construction in this area, although it is unlikely there will be any adverse finding. Recorded plats should note the site is within the Airport District, and there are certain use restrictions. (See attachments.) Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History This property has been zoned RP (Residential Performance) since the RP zoning district was established in 1983. All of the early county zoning maps, prior to 1983, indicate that the property was zoned R1. MDP '009-87, for the Airport Business Center, identified this area for residential development. However, it is the development of the Preston Place Apartments and Townhouses that addresses, in greater detail, the residential development of this property. MDP 9003-90 called for the development of 117 townhouses on the 22 acres north of Route 645. MDP 9005-92, a revision to the previous MDP, called for the additional development of 120 garden apartments south of Route 645. MDP 9006-94 further revised the original MDP, changing the housing type north of Route 645 to 45 townhouses and 72 garden Borderline, L.L.C., REZ #006-98 Page 3 March 23, 1998 apartments. Subdivision #009-92 of the parcel, for which this rezoning is being requested, was approved prior to MDP 9005-92. Subsequently, SP #001-93, SP 9032-94, and SP #039-96 were approved allowing for the full development of the Preston Place Apartments and Townhouse project as master planned, The above plans are significant in that the 2.7 -acre parcel for which this rezoning is being requested was considered as part of the 42 -acre Preston Place residential development, even after its subdivision. The acreage of this parcel was accounted for in the calculations determining the permitted density, open space, and environmental features for the development. 2) Location The property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area and is shown as an area of residential development on the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Map. 3) Site Suitability Steep Slopes. This parcel contains 1.14 acres of steep slopes. It is clear that the steep slopes within this parcel were included in the calculations determining the amount of steep slopes, and the amount of steep slope disturbance, for the Preston Place development. Site Plan #001-93 identifies a total of 4.98 acres of steep slopes within the development, of which a maximum of 1.24 acres, 25%, was disturbed during the development of the apartment complex. Therefore, any further disturbance of steep slopes within this parcel would exceed the maximum disturbance allowed for the entire residential development. It would be inappropriate to consider this 2.7 -acre parcel on its own, as its acreage and steep slopes have been previously relied upon to maximize the amount of disturbance for the Preston Place development. The applicant requests a waiver of the steep slope disturbance allowance to permit an increase in the disturbance of steep slopes on this 2.7 -acre parcel from 25 percent to 50 percent. The Board of Supervisors may allow the disturbance of larger areas of steep slopes in industrial parks. However, this parcel is part of an approved residential master development plan and not within an industrial park. Borderline, L.L.C., REZ #006-98 Page 4 March 23, 1998 The applicant has attempted to address the impacts to the steep slopes located on the parcel by proffering to restrict the disturbance of a 0.8137 -acre area referred to as an environmental easement. It is staff's determination that any further disturbance of steep slopes should not be permitted. Wetlands. The existing pond located at the southern end of the property is identified as a wetland in the National Wetlands Inventory published by the U.S. Department of the Interior in 1990. This should be noted for future reference. Historical. No historical features exist on this property. Density. Comparable to the situation described above regarding steep slopes, the acreage of this parcel was included in the density calculations for the Preston Place development. Two hundred thirty-seven housing units were approved and constructed with this 42 -acre development resulting in a gross density of 5.64 units per acre. This gross density was the maximum permitted for this particular development. The elimination of 2.7 acres from the total acreage would result in an increase in the gross density to six units per acre. The zoning ordinance currently requires that the gross density for a development of this size not exceed 5.5 units per acre. Again, it would be inappropriate to consider this 2.7 -acre parcel on its own as its acreage has been previously relied upon to maximize the gross density of the Preston Place development. 4) Potential Impacts Traffic. The traffic impact analysis submitted by the applicant assumes that the most intensive usage of the property, in terms of trip generation, is as office space. Other uses within the M1 zoning district may have a greater physical impact on the road. When taking into consideration the proffered environmental easement, the maximum 45,787 square feet of office space used by the applicant to determine the trip generation is acceptable. The traffic impact statement concludes that the maximum development of this parcel would generate 759 trips per day which would have a moderate impact on traffic movement on Route 522. Traffic data from the Virginia Department of Transportation shows that the 1993 traffic count records 1,494 trips per day on Route 645 at the site. Recent development in this area has certainly increased the number of trips per day along this section of Route 645. Borderline, L.L.C., REZ 9006-98 Page 5 March 23, 1998 However, Route 645 should be able to sufficiently accommodate the development of this 2.7 - acre parcel. Issues pertaining to site development will be addressed at the site plan stage. It should be noted that the Winchester Area Transportation Plan identifies a four -lane improvement to this section of Route 645. In addition, Route 645 is shown as extended westward over Interstate 81 into the City of Winchester. These improvements are based upon traffic projections for the year 2020. Adjoining Properties. The existing Preston Place apartment and townhouse development will be directly impacted by this rezoning application. As mentioned previously, the acreage of this parcel was accounted for in the calculations determining the permitted density, open space, and environmental features for the Preston Place development. All of the above calculations would be negatively impacted. A "C" category zoning district buffer would have to be implemented adjacent to the apartments. The plat of the property submitted with the application details the terrain on the parcel. Clearly, the full screen portion of the buffer would be ineffective unless located above the proffered environmental easement. Staff would work with the property developer at the site plan stage to ensure that the full screen effectively shields the development from the existing residential uses. The deed for this parcel, which was also submitted as part of the application, describes restrictive covenants guiding any future development of this property. One can assume that the intent of the covenants was to ensure that any future development of this property would not negatively impact the Preston Place development. The rezoning of this parcel will not negatively impact development that is occurring to the east within the Airport Business Center. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. The applicant has evaluated the impact of this rezoning on solid waste disposal facilities based on an office development. The office use has not been proffered by the applicant and it is conceivable that other uses in the Ml zoning district may have a greater impact on solid waste disposal facilities. When considering the acreage of this rezoning, any additional impact to these facilities may be negligible. Community Facilities and Services. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model demonstrated a fiscal impact to Borderline, L.L.C., REZ #006-98 Page 6 March 23, 1998 emergency services. The model run assumed a 66,083 -square -foot office on 2.67 acres of Mi. This square footage of office space is based on the maximum possible square feet of structure per acre of general office use which is 24,750. 5) Impact Statement/Proffer Statement The County Attorney has stated that the proffers appear to be in the appropriate form. It should be noted that a revised proffer statement signed by the property owner, Shalom et Benedictus, must be received by staff prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing. The applicant has submitted a proffer that offsets the fiscal impact to emergency services. The amount proffered is consistent with the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model. This monetary contribution is to be provided to Frederick County and allocated to the Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company. The applicant has stated in the application that the proposed use of the property is an office. However, no use has been proffered. Should this rezoning be approved, any use permitted in the M1 (Light Industrial) zoning district would be allowed as a by -right use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 04/01/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Existing roads are sufficient, as is the existing infrastructure, to accommodate a rezoning of this size without any significant negative impacts. However, the proposal to rezone this property is inconsistent with many of the Comprehensive Plan policies for development in the Urban Development Area of the county. The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Map further identifies the land use in this location as residential. The applicant has adequately mitigated the negative impact to fire and rescue capital costs through a monetary proffer that is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Impact Model. The applicant has also attempted to address the impacts to the steep slopes located on the parcel by proffering to restrict the disturbance of steep slopes within an environmental easement. However, it remains staffs conviction that any further disturbance of steep slopes should not be permitted. In addition, the resulting increase in the gross density of the Preston Place development should be avoided. Staff believes that the impact of this rezoning on the existing development and the existing environmental features is significant. Furthermore, the precedent that would be established by allowing continued disturbance of environmental features, and increases in gross density of development through the reuse of these areas and acreage, would be inappropriate. Rezoning #006-98 PIN: 64 -A -45F Borderline, L.L.C. (Broadway Electric Co.) This map was produced by Frederick Co. Planning & Development 3-16-98 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be con pleted by- PlarningrStqff. Zoning Amendment. Number r- Date: Received PC'HearingDate .. `7-9T .. -BOS Hearing Date - The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: �pa N'�at2-( c1xS PLrL Address: -;(? Z S • I Telephone: t lvZ-ay VtA 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: 111 Via VL Telephone: S -t-jo- (,<,7 Z S Address: ox 3. Contact person if other than above iv'arne: wtS Telephone:5 -7e- 172 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map l Plat Deed to property Verification of taxes paid Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement 11 Vic'', 'QiyQ'• 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: 6. A) Current Use of the Property: _ \� AC-Ata7 B) Proposed Use of the Property: -;P F=t4 5 7. Adjoining Property: (g — A - ?+S G i9'-1 - PA - C -f5 d (a4-1 A - its [A (p ,4 -,4 - 1-t s V -S -E CZ3S S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection. using road names and route numbers): Pct'2.PotZi tze-� , V -C tXA-C3 c9 --t-5-. 0 • S h- %LSS J71 5-r c? F TZ�Ta •5 Z Z 12 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identifieatiion/Location: Parcel Identification Number F Magisterial: Fire Service: 4^ju_-ctj,0^ Rescue Service: Ca JIL==Z ,uwo-C> Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: 14. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zonina zoning Requested 2.CP1 K,I? M� 7`L01 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : 07T sT 0�.� • Single Family homes: Townhome: Non -Residential Lots: �_ Mobile Home. Multi -Family: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of ProR,p ed I Jse-s Office: ko `OC20 �� Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing.- Restaurant: anufacturing:Restaurant: Warehouse: O '-'Ck2- } Other: 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of'Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. AppIicant(s): Dater Date: Owner(s): Date: _ 3 - 2- 9J' i c.� Date: 14 Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number „� it,' a; a d es s. • � p0.�or Name, �,'Cv� 1,14CC I�6G , i, �` �..+Gt�I-C� 4 E3Jt3C-V 1 tYLL `�T ��4�t-�j�till7 , VA Z3ZZ0 Pte, ► s �� T U �JrNc�cste cam, Vii- z z 60 2 Pro erty # B 45G '4 sH A�aN s� Name r-4W1ll. LTC,) qkt27r. Pro erty # �,� 14 -��f5 Name Property # Name Pro erty 4 Name Property Name Pro em Name Pro ern, Name Pro erty Name Pro em Name Property UW'3 Q r �Aa,� m BL d t is 71,2 7 ylh fl�v� Ij -''' �►�VJ h3� :'C til• ' � (I;.., ::`\ �'L � .�Y, i, o --• 1 �� 1 � ••� C `�� C '.� Y ••` j[8>!'i, -45�� ,�_—i � C, II ,�/I%- n,� I �. '�i�sld � o � � �� gy�rr+orY f � ; � �� ' � b t '. r � ° , , • 1. 4 :Cam • BM' % �� 9 ,1. I% ,1�� .\l r,'�.r `� I I\ 1 •f.J'. .r Sl,r j A,•/l l:• .al I%fig •�" ' �' I k TER „• "i * I �" � is ;' �� ' .1 � I • t i \ a�•\t�•- � � �_� J I� I . � ; r �l ;•• � '''� �sl '' ,' s- }`° � � �►" "_'" Via'. '•1 � i 1 SCh b .7i�' • CP S bite ..>� • J C 7�7 } B/a 733" • �': • :1.3% � ��c•-�17 aP\1 � (j,' I� t ,� � • .y: -,' �a � - .I . //Yn7�- > � ,��11JC), '! T� ;,. •.•, _ \ rte, �i;, ( f� ),. X m�1 ) Wlp Chestef,M uhicipal 1728 / I30 �1 J 713 160, Sl- •� a ° r-Q-cX! S • �r J7 0,1� � !- � �/ � r� ��IGyn' `y • � �`j r 50`�-�� _ •+ •=._'�; ' '� `,I ' �� ;;SII „r1 y?� :�1 Shenandoah u12' I((I Qj Memorial ParCP 14 ti G .-i; _�� c �ar -�a=L '�ic• I .iC 0 Frailer �� Party 1744 10'1745 FRONT RO+At. 15 Afl. O I TERIOR--0EgIgGKJ1 SURVEY, RESTON. VIRGINIA -- 147 7. PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. .702 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchestalr• Virginia 22501 Telephone (540)552-5792PARCEL Facsimile (540)562-3743 n � SITE LOCATION A PROPOSED REZONING 64—((A)} -45F FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SURVEY. DRAWW SCALE C.L- JOB NO.: N 's'97 JCL . EXHIBIT: 1' - 2000• na 1 9711021 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 302 SouthBraddock Street. Suites Winchester. Virginia 22501 Telephone (340)662-5792 Facsimile (540)662-5793 PROPERTY MAP 200 A PROPOSED REZONING PARCEL 64 -((A)) -45F FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: 12-15-97 SURVEI,. M&L ORAWN: JCL EXHIBIT - XHIBIT:C_L. SCALE: no C_ L. no 2 JOB NO.: 9711021 lb x Ix x t / / � Y i 1 I kms, Y X � B x x Y x X x x �- iYA•^^\ X 1XIxicR,x=1% t Y ;j x{ Y 13 x% x I x I Y x l x f \\` I 11 x T x X (� Y � X /Y X % """ �% x � �"� �\ •\ \� � x , % i Y % I x v� % y/i\\- ` .w. X yXt Y `X \7x� \ K , X .I x Y i Y X ! II C S \Y X . x x1x z Y Y 1 ��\%O Y' X Y y Y� /�. Y� to , `+vA \ X fl\I Y �X /�`[\_ �x � 1'�Y X:.x x x•� \ X x+ X w r 1 x �1 � j r x x O / x x x1 Y X x LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE \/� X �C X I% x Lt S84'17'22W 50.25ft L2 556 15'02"W 54.63ft L3 58417'2TW 30.15ft L4 N63'26106'W 38.01ft L5 N4632'53W 26.17ft L6 N76'03'59'W 130.08ft L7 N1 2'11.01' E 90.03ft La N1 1 1TW 165.70ft \ µ x \x X, 0 \x\ x 1(\x x z x x x X x /x x/ X ' \ \ T w x 7 x. fj ��x�i : �`x x x • �x � x k ry STEEP SLOPES 7:1 <6= x YI Y LOT DATA „y x x LOT AREA 2.67 ACRES TOTAL AREA IN STEEP SLOPES 49,858 SF t4 AREA IN STEEP SLOPES DISTURBED — 24,845 SF (50x6) AREA IN STEEP SLOPES PRESERVED = 25,013 (50%)SF BUILDING AREA = 80 861 SF (1 856 ACRE:'Z) EXISTING POND AREA IN ENVIRONMENTAL EASED#ENT = 35,444 SF (0.8137 ACRES) 1 PA1,1WER-OVIS, P.LC. PROJECT: DATE: 02-03-98 SURVEY: NA 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Vrncheater, A PROPOSED REZONN DRAWN: JCL Virginia 22601 SCALE: 1' = 60' EXHIBIT: Telephone (540)662-5792 P �� A)— F Facsimile (540)662-5793 ^_ L�'^�/ a.- C•1•: 2• 3 s JOB NO.: 9711021 77 J J r✓ " ,J�%1 iA� v 1 427 Calvary Church of the Brethren(Reconstruction-church) 430 Rosenberger Farm(Reconstruction-agriculture) 431 Russell Place(I-house) 433 Evandale School 457 House off Route 522 459 House, Route 522(Hall-Parlor) 460 House, Route 522(Craftsman) 461 Moreland's Stop & Shop Grocery(WWI-commerce) 462 Pingley House(Reco nstruction- agriculture) 463 Store, Route 522 at Old Route 645(WWI-commerce) 464 Beaver House 465 Gothic Revival Cottage. Beaver Property 1187 Crosen House(WWl-agriculture) 1189 Grove -Derry House(WWI-agriculture) 1190 Calthorne-Grove House(WWl-agriculture) 1379 Fletcher House PAINTER—LEWIS, P.L.C. .302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Vrginio 22501 Telephone (540)662-5792 Facsimile (540)662-5793 PROJECT: HISTORIC STRUCTURES A PROPOSED REZONING PARCEL 64—((A)) -45F FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE; 12-15-97 SURVEY: NA ORAWN: JCL EXHIBIT. SCALE: 1' - 2000' C. L. n 4 JOB NO -:9711021 PROFFER STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for PARCEL ID - 64 -((A)) -45F Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia March 11, 1998 <.0 IR� FIA;*11NG �V; P�' DEVEI.��ti1EtiS !� . A Prepared for: Borderline, L.L.C. c/o Broadway Electric Company P. O. Box 306 Broadway, Virginia 22815 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock Street - Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (510)-662-5792 Job Number: 9711021 PROFFER STATEMENT PARCEL ID 64 -((A) -45F INTRODUCTION The subject property consists of 2.67 acres and is located on Route 645, Airport Road, approximately 0.50 miles east of US Route 522. The property consists of a single parcel which is zoned RP. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the property. The property was originally a part of the Preston Place Apartments development land. After development of the first phase of the apartments, the property was conveyed to Shalom et Benedictus, the current owner. The property is not suitable for residential development. Borderline, L.L.C. desires to rezone the entire 2.67 acres to M1, Light Industrial District. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned applicant proffers that in the event that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County shall approve Rezoning Application 9006-99 for the rezoning of 2.67 acres on Parcel 64 -((A)) -45F from RP to M1, development of this particular 2.67 acres will be in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. These terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the owner of the property with permission from the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Frederick County codes. These proffers shall be binding on the owner and their legal successors or assigns. PROFFERS Borderline, L.L.C. hereby agrees to restrict disturbance of an area containing 0.8137 acres on Parcel 64 -((A)) -45F to utility installation and the construction of storm water controls as required to facilitate development. This area is to be referred to as an environmental easement and is defined by metes and bounds as shown on the attached Exhibit 1. Monetary Contribution to Frederick County Service Organizations The owner will pay or will cause to be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County the sum of $3,148.30 for impacts to fire and rescue services. This sum will be paid upon receipt of a building permit for the proposed use structure. The conditions proffered above shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest of the owner. In the event that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors ;rants this rezoning and accepts these proffers, then these proffers shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to the other requirements of the Frederick County Code. PROFFER STATEMENT PARCEL ID 64 -((A) -45F Submitted By: Borderline, L.L.C. GeraldI AV Smith Date: -31!2/9? STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF , To -Wit: I�oc,1<<r�jhwl The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Zi_' day of by Mr. Gerald Smith. My commission expires on JCtnki4, Notary Pub is �o�s W. Lv_a,,4 X .�� 116 � /� / �\` � x x1 •�.o 77-77 04 ,Y` x x x x ►F \ x � X. / X • i Y i \ X IR 1 % X xI X a• e x Y . \Y x x \ \ ' XIx xlx I �{ A' I J X i X X Xx if X X Y. `• \ % + X X -X x t Y% R 00-- x X x I x x• X Y \ \ I X � x % % % rt /1j// \ ; I t ; X X � \x l / x; x �= x x 3> (l1 1 ' / ,>0->0. Xy x x ; Y `Y ; x x% x x x x, : Y 'x 08 x x x X X i X x �x Y X +� ; X xj x K �x x x J CX7 1 !2 70 \ \ y R :61 A ; X x > x �r 1 1 x� x �X i \ Y X X x Ix X, Y x x 1 \ \x Y\1e x� x Y \%�\ \ x X /x f� x; X. x R b 1 LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE ` a \X \ Y J{ Y !R t x X I� LI S84'17'=W 5U.25/t x � x LZ SW15'0:rW 54Mft L3 S84.17'2T W 30.15ft L4 N&T2610irw 38.01ft `\ x� Y% x ,a` 'X / ,, X v L5 HQr32'53'W 26.17ft L.6 N16'03'59'W 130.00R X/ X x/ L7 N1211.01'E 90.03ft \ XX x�x x \ x x� a i Nt 1' W \ \x`�X lr Y \ • ��x xi ` � R�i ■ �x i ��Y x x ry STEEP SLOPES v x�i X X x x x X\4 X LOT DATA s x x LOT AREA — 2.67 ACRES TOTAL AREA IN STEEP SLOPES 49,858 SF 04 AREA IN STEEP SLOPES DISTURBED = 24,845 SF (50x) AREA IN STEEP SLOPES PRESERVED = 25,013 (50%)SF BUILDING AREA = 80,881 SF (1.858 ACRES) EaasriNc Pomo AREA IN ENVIRONMENTAL EASEMENT — 35,444 SF (0.8137 ACRES) PROJECT: DATE 02-03-98 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. PM*TM ED= SURVEY: NA 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 DRANK: JCL Winchester. Virginia 22601 A REZONMG EXHIBIT. Telephone (540)662-5792 PMM R4_ffj)),M SCALE 1' 60' Facsimile (540)662-5793 ``�aM��V�//—/��/�+�� C•I•: 2� i 1 �M M JOB NO.: 9711021 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for PARCEL ID - 64 -((A)) -45F Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia February 5, 1998 Prepared for: Borderline, L.L.C. c/o Broadway Electric Company P. O. Box 306 Broadway, Virginia 22815 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540)-662-5792 Job Number: 9711021 r is lv INIPACT STATE`' -NT PARCEL ID: 64-((.-k))-4-5F IMPACT T ANALYSIS ST, EMERi � TABLE OF CONTENTS section cage i. INTRODUCTION I A. SITE SUITABILITY 1 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 2 C. TRAFFIC 3 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 4 E. WATER SUPPLY 4 F. DRAINAGE 4 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 5 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 5 I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 5 J. OTHER IMPACTS 5 APPENDIX 6 IMPACT STATE% —\T PARCEL ID 64 -((A)) -45F i. INTRODUCTION The subject property consists of 2.67 acres and is located on Route 645, Airport Road, approximately 0.50 miles east of US Route 522. The property consists of a single parcel which is zoned RP. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the property. The property was originally a part of the Preston Place Apartments development land. After development of the first phase of the apartments, the property was conveyed to Shalom et Benedictus, the current owner. The property is not suitable for residential development. Borderline, L.L.C. desires to rezone the entire 2.67 acres to M1, Light Industrial District. According to the 1997 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, the property is within the Urban Development Area. The property also lies adjacent to the Airport Business Center. The property is located between the Winchester Regional Airport and Route 522. The proximity of the property to Route 522, Route 50, Interstate Route 81 and the airport makes it highly desirable for commercial development. The intended purpose for the rezoning of the subject parcel is to allow the construction of central services facilities for Broadway Electric Company. As part of this rezoning request, the Borderline, LLC requests a waiver from the requirements of Section 165-31-B.6 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant requests that the amount of allowable steep slope disturbance be increased from 25% to 50%. The disturbance of up to 50 % of the steep slopes on the site is necessary to allow the construction of the proposed central services facility. As stated in the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisers may allow the disturbance of larger areas of steep slopes in industrial parks. The subject property is part of the original Airport Business Center Park. A. SITE SUITABILITY In many respects, the site is well suited for development. The property has over 400 feet of frontage on Airport Road for access. Public water, cable television and telephone lines are in place parallel to the Airport Road right-of-way along the property frontage. Public sewer is available on the parcel directly to the west. The site is well drained. The site will require the regrading of the on site soils to create a suitable area for the construction of a building and parking area. This regrading will necessarily involve the disturbance of existing steep slopes. Steep slopes are defined by Frederick County code as those areas with slopes of 15% or greater. The steep slopes on this property were identified in a ;Master Development Plan approved for the Preston Place Apartments. On the Master Development Plan, there was no specific area attributed to the preservation of steep slopes on the subject property. The Frederick County Code requires that a maximum of 254% of steep slopes be disturbed on any property to be developed. It can be inferred from the Master Development Plan for Preston Place Apartments that all of the steep slopes area on the subject property must be preserved in order for this requirement to be satisfied for the apartment development. However, since no specific delineation, that is by metes and bounds, of the steep slopes was provided on the Master Developoment Plan, the Frederick page 1 RLPACT A�ALYSlS ST.-\TE.%'c\T PARCEL ID. 64 -((A)) -45F County staff has determined that the subject property can stand on its own when determining the allowable disturbance of steep slopes area. 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FIRM Community Panel Number 510063 01 158 shows the parcel is not within designated areas of the 100 year flood. WETLANDS No wetlands have been identified on the site. There is no evidence of hydric soils or plants in significant quantity to warrant delineation of wetlands. STEEP SLOPES The property generally slopes to the south. Slopes range from 1.0% to approximately 25%. An area of approximately 1/2 acre lies adjacent to Route 645 which could be considered buildable area without regrading. From this buildable area, the site pitches off in three directions at slopes which for the most part exceed 15%. The total area in steep slopes on the property is 49,858 square feet, or approximately 42.87% of the site. In order to accommodate the proposed use, Borderline, LLC will need to regrade or otherwise disturb approximately 24,845 square feet of the steep slopes area. This amounts to approximately 50% steep slope disturbance. The remaining area of steep slopes to remain undisturbed will be placed in an environmental easement. Please see Exhibit 3. In order to ensure that the amount of steep slope disturbance does not exceed 50%, Borderline, LLC will proffer the establishment of an environmental easement over approximately 30% of the 2.67 acre site. Disturbance within this easement will be restricted to utility installation and the construction of storm water controls as required to facilitate development. This easement will be defined by metes and bounds and will become a matter of public record as part of site planning documents normally required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. MATURE WOODLANDS The site is generally without mature woodlands. SOILS According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following soil type: Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 15-25%, (41D). These soils are part of the Weikert-Berks-Blairton Association which are generally shallow to moderately deep and formed from weathered shale or sandstone. The Unified soil classifications are GSI, NIL, and CL. Soft bedrock can be expected at relatively shallow depths less than 60 inches below the ground surface. There are no critical areas on the site. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The site to be rezoned is bordered on the north by the Route 645 right-of-way. Across the right-of-way are two parcels. See Exhibit 2. Parcel 45H is owned by Preston Place Associates, LP, zoned RP, and is used for residential purposes. Parcel 45C is owned by Stafford Holding Company, zoned RP, and is used for residential purposes. To the west and south is Parcel 45B page 2 I%IP.-%CT ANALYSIS STATENT PARCEL [D: 64 -((A)) -45F which is owned by Preston Place Assocaites, LP, Zoned RP, and is used for residential purposes. To the east and south is Parcel 45 which is owned by Adams Family LTD Partnership, zoned M 1, and is currently vacant. The adjoining property owner information is listed below. Parcel ID 9 64 -((A)) -45C Stafford Holding Company 601 South Belvidere Street Richmond, VA 23220 Parcel ID 9 64 -((A)) -45B Preston Place Associates, LP 601 South Belvidere Street Richmond, VA 23220 Parcel ID 64 -((A)) -45H Preston Place Associates, LP 601 South Belvidere Street Richmond, VA 23220 Parcel ID4 64-((A))-45 Adams Family LTD Partnership 401 Pegasus Court Winchester, VA 22602 The subject property is located between high density housing and land intended for light industrial use. The intended use for the property is compatible with the general character of the airport area. Recent developments in the Airport Business Park include the Kohl's distribution facility and office space in the Pegasus Business Center. The area is generally identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial growth. The adjacent high density residential properties have been designed to minimize visual and audible impacts from future development in the existing MI zoning. Existing apartment buildings are oriented facing away from the adjacent M1 zoning. The nearest apartment building to the subject property is approximately 100' from the commom property line_ Impacts resulting from commercial development of the property will be mitigated by the application of a landscaping and screening buffer to be located between residential land zoned RP and the proposed commercial development. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires a caregory C distance buffer with a minimum width of 100 feet plus the installation of opaque screening to reduce visual impacts upon residential property. C. TRAFFIC The site is approximately 1/2 mile from the intersection of Route 522 and Route 645. The 1997 Comprehensive Plan classifies Route 522 as a major arterial road. In addition, the Eastern Road Plan shows a possible connection between the Winchester City limits and Route 645. Route 645 at the site is a two lane road. Traffic data from the Virginia Department of Transportation for a 1993 count records 1,494 trips per day on Route 645 at the site. In the event that the above mentioned connection is constructed and as the airport area continues to build out, improvements will be necessary to Route 645 along the frontage of the subject property. Improvements to Route 645 at the property will be addressed by VDOT during the design stage of the site. Traffic impacts as a result of commercial development of this property can be estimated by assuming the most intensive usage of the site. In this case, the most intensive usage is the establishment of office space on the property. With the establishment of the environmental page 3 IMPACT ,kNALYSIS STATE` " NT PARCEL ID 64 -((A)) -45F easement as described in Section A, the buildable area of the site will consist of 1.85 acres. Applying a formula used by the Frederick County Planning Staff, the maximum amount of office space is 24,750 square feet of general office space per acre of M1 zoning. Therefore vehicle trips will be calculated based upon 45,787 square feet of office space. Vehicle trips are estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition for the category of "General Office Building". Traffic impacts can be based on the area of potential office space. For the nUrposes of this report trip ends will be estimated from the ITE Manual as follows: Average Vehicle Trip Ends -Weekday: 16.58 x 45.8 = 739 Average Vehicle Trip Ends -A. M. Peak Hour: 2.22 x 45.8 = 102 Average !Vehicle Trip Ends -P.M. Peak Hour: 2.24 x 45.8 = 103 The generation of 759 trips per day from 45,787 square feet of office would have a moderate impact on traffic movement on Route 522. The developer of such a project would have to provide improvements to the road infrastructure as required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Improvements could include the construction of turn lanes and perhaps the participation in the signalization of adjacent intersections. These issues would have to be addressed during the site planning process. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT There are currently public sewerage facilities available to serve the site. An 8" diameter sanitary sewer line runs in an easement on the Preston Place Apartments development on the west side of the site. Sewage flows from general office space may amount to 15-35 gallons per day per employee. Office space of 45,787 square feet would support approximately 200 employees. The projected flow generated from 200 employees 4,000 -pd or less than 0.01 cfs. Sewage from the site would be conveyed to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facilty for treatment. E. WATER SUPPLY There are currently public water facilities available to serve the site. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has a 12" diameter water main running parallel with the southern right-of-way of Route 645 along the property frontage. F. DRAINAGE The site is an isolated high point with respect to the surrounding area. Natural swales exist on both the west and east sides of the site which carry runoff away from Route 645. The pond discharges water that eventually flows to Buffalo Lick Run. There are no permanent or intermittent streams on or near the site. An increase in storm water runoff can be expected with any development on the parcel. Storm water management will be provided in accordance with the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165. It is anticipated that the existing pond will serve as adequate detention for the site. page 4 EMPACT ANALYSIS STATE` —LT PARCEL 1D 64 -((A)) -45F G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The nearest solid waste transfer facility is located at the Frederick County Landfill approximately 3 miles to the northeast on Sulphur Spring Road. No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be required for the proposed development. The amount of solid waste generated by an office development can be estimated based at 50 pounds per day for the entire site. Tipping fees are $35.00 per ton. Collection fees art- 525.00 per ton. The annual cosi projected to meet waste disposal needs can be estimated by: cost = cost per ton of waste .r totittage 5547 50 = 560.00 x (50 lbs) x (1120001bs/ton) x 365 (lays/year H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The site contains no known historic sites or structures as listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register. According to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Battlefield inventory, the property lies outside the commonly accepted limits of the major civil war battles. The nearest recognized battlefield associated with the Civil War would be the Second Battle of Kernstown located approximately one mile due west of the site. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report lists several architecturally or historically significant sites and structures within approximately one mile of the site. Please refer to Exhibit 4, I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES ED UCA TION No impacts to education facilities are anticipated. EMERGENCY SERG7CES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriffs Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company No. IS located approximately 4.0 miles to the northeast on Senseny Road. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required for the area proposed to be rezoned. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capital cost for emergency service facilities attributable to this development is $572.00. PARKS AND RECREATION The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capital cost for public park facilities attributable to this development is 50.00. J. OTHER IMPACTS Interviews with county staff indicate that no additional impacts are required to be addressed. page 5 I_\LPA(: I-N.A-LYSIS ST.ATE%VPNT PARCEL ID 64 -((A)) -45F IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT APPENDIX item EXHIBIT 1 SITE LOCATION 1 EXHIBIT 2 PROPERTY MAP 2 EXHIBIT 3 SITE MAP 3 EXHIBIT 4 HISTORIC STRUCTURES 4 EXHIBIT 5 FISCAL IMPACT MODEL 5 EXHIBIT 6 CURRENT TAX STATEMENT 6 EXHIBIT 7 PROFFER STATEMENT 7 EXHIBIT 8 PROPERTY DEED 8 pale 6 ------------ OUTPUT MODULE Net Fiscal Capital Impact Credi Fire Department Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation TOTAL_ -------------------------- FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM S73 5499 SO SO SO 12 $571 51,060,935 ------------------ New Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contributions ------------------------------------ NOTES: Model Run Date 12/16/97 FAW P.I.N. 64 -A -45F Rezoning: 2.67 acres assuming: 66,083 sq.ft. office on 2.67 acres of M1 Credit foe Taxes to Capital Net CQ= Imoa 5517 S54 573,653 SO 54.378 U 578,548 SO 53,148.30 Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R Lawrence, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Variation from Subdivision Ordinance for Mr. E. Frank Smith DATE: March 18, 1998 The Board of Supervisors, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, may allow for variations to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 144 of the County Code in cases of unusual situations (§ 144-5). Therefore, the following subdivision situation is presented for your consideration. Mr. E. Frank Smith would like to transfer 7.811 acres of his 193.190 acres to Mr. and Mrs. Meadows, bringing the Meadows' property to 12.811 acres. This land transfer would be through a boundary line adjustment. This 7.811 acres is located on a wooded hillside in the Gainesboro Magisterial District on Marple Road; the terrain is steep and does not perk. The reason for bringing this request to the Planning Commission is that the newly expanded Meadows' property (12.811 acres) would exceed the maximum lot depth ratio. As stated in Chapter 165, Section 56.B: "The maximum depth of any lot shall not exceed four (4) times its width at the front setback line." This establishes a depth -to -width ratio requirement of 4:1. The proposed boundary line adjustment would create a lot ratio of 7.7:1, which exceeds the required maximum. Staff believes this proposed boundary line adjustment would be considered an unusual situation, enabling the Planning Commission to consider allowing a variation in the Subdivision Ordinance requirement. A recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors is appropriate. Staff is available to respond to your questions. ERL/cc Attachment UAERI0C0%1.%10NR98LE=R',FS%1rTH PC 107 North Dent Street • Winchester. Virginia 22601-5000 147Y GREENWAY ENGINEERING i51 Win& 1lili i.mc wincheme'r. Vijgima 22601 bounded in 1971 March'), 1998 Frederick County Planning 107 North Kent St. Winchester, Va. 22601 ATT: Eric Lawrence, Subd. Admin, RE: E. Frank Smith Boundary Line Adjustment Dear Eric: Please find the enclosed sketch plat for a proposed boundary line adjustment_ We realize this does not meet the requirements for the 4:1 ratio of the subdivision ordinance. However, on behalf of our client, E. Frank Smith, we would appreciate your consideration for a variance on this matter. Sincerely, Jarrry nway Engineering L.idler Engineers surveyors I"Icph„n,' X40 -0i,1-4135 FA,\ 5-10-''1 J5'y 13OUhJ0:1AI--f' LINE AC>JUSTMENT 56TWEEN THE LANp5 of E. FtzA N K SM ITH AND JAMES 5i. MEALe>Wi.,F2�.+- GORNELIA E. MEADOWS GA INC-5BoP-o DISTFzIGT- FRE`DEFICK CoUNTI . VIRGINIA MARCH 3, 1-.) -!:)8 522 w NGFIESTI=R I'9 �T D Mqa E a P � LE VICINITY MAP VA. FzoUTE 654 SCALE. I" = 2c�' owNE12-'5 CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FotLE13oING �UNC7>AR'( LINE ADJU5TMENT OF THE LANDS of E.FRANK SMITHMIDJAMES`3.MEARr->WS..JP-.AND GOP-NELIA E. MEADOWS r WITH THE FREECONSENT AND I fHN ACCORDANCE WITH -THE pE5tFiE5 of -EUNDERSIGNED OWNERS pPoPFzIEToR5 , AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. GEIZTIFICA7E of ACKNov�(LE�EMENT c ITY/CouNTYvF GvMt rvNWEAt TH of VIRGINIA / To WIT: THE FoREGoING G>151CUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAYoF 13Y NoTAP- ( PUb1_I r.^�/Gv,,,f,,,llssr�rl EXPIP`E S 5UFZ'VE'(oR'5 GEF -TI FIGATE I HEF-EESYCERTIF-(THAT THE LAND 6oN7AINEp INZHIS SA Bo(JNDAIz� LINE ADJUSTMENT IPORTION oFTHE LAND CONVEYI=D To E. FRANK 5MITH B� D15CLAIMEF= DATED FEOF-(JAFz( S 1')Bo AND REG-r-�.%�D IN -THE FREDERIGIC laUNTYCoUR7 CL -EP -14't; OFFICE IN DEEPt5IG 5Z4 AT PAGE 811 AN gY WILL DATEp APRIL to , 1�n60 AND RF=oRDED IN THE FP-ePeFZIcK COUNTY Ga�IZT GL -EP -K'5 pFFICE IN WILL Bci�C e& AT PAGE 70o AND ALL of THE UF'T G-N`/EYEDTvJAMES S. MFAG�ws� JR . AND G�-NEEM E. MEAG2�W5 E3 -y, DEED DATED NA/EMBER I . 1 74 AND REcoRpED IN7HE FP-EDEP-ICK GoUN7Y Ca1FLTGl.EpK'S OFFICE IN pEEo � OZ� A -T PAGE IZZ3. MAtiIL b 5M17H. L.S. WzJ ,TF -S I. TAX MAP �W -tl - A - Ib--) SM ITH) ZONE : P -A U5E : AG{? 2, TAX MAP -W -t•I - A - ( MEALbvVS) ZoNC : P -A U 5i✓ : P -E S. APPRvVAL FFiEpEWGK GoUNT (�lU13D1V1510NAGT.IIN. PATE GREE WAY ENGWEERM Engineers 151 WINDY HILL LANE Surveyors WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 TELEPHONE: (540) 662-4185 runded in 1971 FAX: (540) 722-9528 V " /k/ --x- MARK D. SWTH No.002009 HEFT I aF 7 H Zs- 20 " E A Fz E A 51. zz ��IA.� TABU LATIoNPQMITH : -1�3Imo AGai. all AG. EMA1N1NG :185.37 AG.`� ER. F.MEAG2-wS: e; AG\9�7-iall AC. E W AREA : 12.811 AG �/ I.fz F• I.P.S. S "ln .a o � � a �?sI ��EB' R`e� E E P. B. 82 Q G Fes. Izz 3) O R�� • Z? -:'IV IFF �6S Z5� sQ I.F.F. ' H 6 I.Ft. F . s AG►zES o o N� � m P - R_ I.R.F. 5/8"FL I.F.F. P-EEAP- FouNp 1 112 F-EBAF- 5eT Q, O� 22 poto t G I 5.R•L. • BUILDING 1.(Z.s. 3 rLlcl RF57F(6TION LINE \Z 03 6e" \0 1 i� OCl BoUNC>AF•Y LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LAND -i of E. FF -A N I< SMITH AND JAMES S. '� r MF-ADvvVS,.JIz.tGop-NELI A E. MEAGnvNS GAINES�o bISTP-IGT- FREDEI"IGK�-ot�N'T(, VIRGINIA � DATE : MAF=GH 3, " MARX D. SMITH No.002009 GREENWAY ENGWEERM �9 .3 • � Engineers 151 WINDY HILL LANE Surveyors WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 ST TR TELEPHONE: (540) 662-4185 Fo+.nd.d in 1971 FAX: (540) 722-9528 SHEET Z oF- Z