Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 10-07-98 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia OCTOBER 7, 1998 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Minutes of September 2, 1998 ......................................... A 2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................. B 3) Committee Reports.................................................(no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................(no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #006-98 of Boyd L. Bloomer for a public garage without body repair. This property is located at 4784 Martinsburg Pike, and is identified with Property Identification Number 24-A-9 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Mi. Lawrence) .................................................... ` 6) Conditional Use Permit #007-98 of Ricky Lee Pitts for a public garage without body repair. This property is located at 4445 Back Mountain Road, and is identified wit Property Identification Number 58-1-1 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (Mr. Ruddy) ....................................................... D 7) Conditional Use Permit #008-98 of Meade's Family Day Home, submitted by Winona M. Clark, for a day care facility. This property is located at 150 Twine Lane, and is identified with Property Identification Number 26 -A -34A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (Mr. Lawrence) .................................................... E 8) Rezoning #012-98 of Thomas A. Grove, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 6.008 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to MI (Light Industrial). This property is located on the south side of Route 645 (Airport Road) near the Winchester Regional Airport and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A-39 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... F 2 9) Rezoning #013-98 of Curtis L. Braithwaite, submitted by Ebert and Associates, to rezone 38.867 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). The parcels are located at 263 and 261 Sunset Drive, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 65-1-B and 65-1-B1 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... G 10) Rezoning 4014-98 of Gregory Investments to rezone .149 acres (6,502 square feet) from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General). This property is located at the intersection of Aylor Road (Rt. 647) and Double Church Road (Rt. 641) on the west side of Aylor Road and along I-81, and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A- 51 in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... H 11) Proposed Modification of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, Eastern Road Plan Map, to relocate and revise the functional classification of existing and proposed collector roads between Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Millwood Pike (Route 50). (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... I 12) Update of the 1999-2000 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan (Mr -Ruddy) ....................................................... J DISCUSSION ITEMS 13) Update to the Impact Model (Mr, Lawrence) .................................................... K 14) Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Outreach To Asia Nationals (OTAN) (Mr. Lawrence) .................................................... L 15) Other�� cid ,�, ` MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on September 2, 1998. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk, CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - JULY 1, 1998 & AUGUST 5,1998 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the meeting minutes of July 1, 1998 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the meeting minutes of August 5, 1998 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the report for the Commission's information. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1998 Page 240 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Re-2ulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 08/27/98 Mtg. Mr. Tierney, Planning Director, reported that the DRRS discussed an amendment for an organization entitled, Outreach to Asian Nationals. Mr. Miller, subcommittee member, said that members of the DRRS were basically in opposition to the proposal; however, this request will be presented to the full Commission in October. Transportation Committee - 09/01/98 Mtg. Mr. Thomas, Committee member, reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. He said that this item will be presented to the Commission in October. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 08/18/98 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver, Planning Commission liaison to the SA, reported the following from the Authority's last meeting: 1) the SA approved a bid for the Rt. 642/Rt. 522 Water Transmission Main, the Apple Valley Water and Sewer Transmission Line, and the Hogue Run Interceptor; the lowest bidder was Perry Engineering. 2) Mr. Broy received permission to connect to the City's waterline at 3605 Valley Avenue. 3) the SA approved a request from the Livestock Exchange to be tied into Southland Corporation's request to obtain sewer service from the City of Winchester. Winchester City Planning Commission - 08/98 Mtg. Mr. DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison, reported that the City Planning Commission is continuing with their review of the Comprehensive Plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1998 Page 241 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 9005-98 of Appleland Sports Center, submitted by Ralph S. Gregory, to amend CUP 9006-96 by adding the following uses: 1) go-cart track (indoor or outdoor); 2) ice-cream/ food convenience concession stand; 3) Par 3 golf course; 4) water slide; and 5) accessory retail associated with the permitted recreation uses. The property is located at 4506 Valley Pike and is identified with P.I.N.s 75-A-27 and 75 -A -27A in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Michael Ruddy, Planner II, stated that there were no significant issues raised by any of the reviewing agencies, except the Health Department. The Health Department has noted that the existing sewage disposal system is operating at peak flow, however, a suitable area was located on the site that would accommodate an additional 730 gallons per day. Mr. Ruddy said that staff is recommending the requirement of 132 parking standards, with the exception of curb and gutter, and an increased parking lot setback from the Route 11 right-of-way in which vegetative screening could be placed, if development occurred directly adjacent to Route 11. Mr. Ruddy added that no additional entrances should be pennitted onto Route 11 from this property and staff would also encourage limiting the signage to the existing monument sign and prohibiting additional signs along Route 11. Mr. Ruddy concluded by saying that an engineered site plan will be required for the additional development of this facility; and, in addition, the previous conditions approved with CUP #006-90 that are still valid have been incorporated into the eleven conditions recommended for this new CUP. Members of the Commission had questions about the use of a decibel rating to control noise level at the site. The intent was understood, but Commissioners felt there should be additional wording to identify the designated 75dba as a peak level, without any time period associated with it. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for this project, said that the applicant understands all of the recommended conditions, including the 75dba maximum peak at any time, and will comply with those conditions. He stated that the applicant intends to equip the go-carts with mufflers and is also considering enclosing the go-cart track at a later date. He added that the go-cart facility has been located in the center of the property to provide an adequate distance buffer from adjoining properties. Mr. Gyurisin said that their intention is to continue the parking area to the west, away from, and not parallel to, Route 11. Another question raised by the Commission concerned the Health Department's reference to 100 patrons per day." The concern was that the applicant might be underestimating usage of the facility and it might hinder future operation. The Planning Commission's main concern was that the operation be conducted within the 132 (Business General) requirements and setbacks, and that it should adhere to the guidelines developed within the Route 11 South Corridor Plan. Mr. Gyurisin assured the Commission that the applicant was comfortable and able to operate within those requirements and guidelines. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and an area resident inquired how the 75dba compared with the level of noise from the Winchester Speedway. which he hears althouuh he lives five miles away. Commission naernbers believed the noise from the Winchester Speedway was much greater than 75dba. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1998 Page 242 -4 - Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of CUP #005-98 of Appleland Sports Center, submitted by Ralph S. Gregory, to amend CUP #006-96 by adding the following uses: 1) go-cart track (indoor or outdoor); 2) ice-cream/ food convenience concession stand; 3) Par 3 golf course; 4) water slide; and, 5) accessory retail associated with the permitted recreation uses, with the following conditions: All review agency comments must be addressed and complied with at all times. A site plan shall be approved by the County. Lighting must be directed away from Route 11 and the adjoining residential properties. 4. No ABC license will be applied for at this establishment. 5. Hours of operation shall not exceed 11:00 p.m. 6. Noise shall be controlled to prevent excessive levels from impacting the adjoining residential properties (75dba maximum peak at any time at the property line). 7. Additional commercial entrances shall not be permitted onto Route 11 from this facility. 8. No additional signs advertising the business shall be located along Route 11. Parking lot design standards for the B2 Zoning District, with the exception of curb and gutter, shall be implemented during the future development of this property. 10. An increased setback area containing vegetative screening shall be provided along Route 11. 11. Any expansion of use, or change of use, would require a new CUP. Rezoning Application 9011-98 of RT&T Partnership (Kernstown Business Park) to rezone 17.84 acres from B2 (Business General) to B3 (Industrial Transition). This property is located on Valley Pike (Rt. 11 South), approximately 1/4 mile south of the Route 37 interchange and is identified with P.I.N. 75-A-21) in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt said that the County Engineer has stated that the geology associated with the higher topographic elevations of the site may have the potential for the development of sinkholes. He said that the County Engineer has, therefore, recommended that additional geotechnical work be conducted as site plans are prepared for land development in these areas. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that there is a potential for B3 uses to generate a greater amount of truck traffic, than those uses pernlitted in the B2 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1998 Page 243 -5 - District. He noted that the development of required buffers and screening between the B2 and B3 properties could adequately mitigate the impacts associated with heavy commercial uses. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that staff believes the rezoning request is appropriate and would fiu-ther recommend that a revised master development plan depicting various zoning classifications and the required buffer and screening areas be provided for administrative approval, should the rezoning be approved by the Board of Supervisors. A concern raised by Commission members was whether allowing B3 uses along Route 11 was consistent with the Route 11 Land Use Plan. Mr. Wyatt said that the Route 11 South Land Use Plan calls for both sides of Route 11 in that area to be strictly business and office use; however, the text does not specifically state that it would discourage heavier commercial uses that would be permitted in the B3 Zone. He specified that although it would be preferable to have B2 uses along Route 11, B3 uses would not be precluded. He added that in this particular instance, the acreage under consideration is an area towards the rear of the Kernstown Business Park. Mr. Thomas Baker, a partner of the RT&T Partnership, said that their request for rezoning is strictly from a marketing standpoint. He explained that they have owned this property for a number of years and the rear portion has always been zoned 132; they believed they would be more successful marketing it, if the rear portion was zoned B3. Regarding the potential for sinkholes, it was Mr. Baker's understanding that the County Engineer was referring to an area south of this property. Mr_ Baker said that he was not aware of any sinkholes on his property. There were no public comments. The Commission believed the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Route 11 South Land Use Plan and had no other outstanding areas of concern. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #011-98 of RT&T Partnership (Kernstown Business Park) to rezone 17.84 acres from B2 (Business General) to B3 (Industrial Transition) with all staff recommendations. Proposed Modifications of the Eastern Road Plan Map of the Comprehensive Policy Plan to relocate and revise the functional classification of existing and proposed collector roads between Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Millwood Pike (Route 50). Action - Refer to Transportation Committee Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, stated that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered a request from Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, to modify the County's Eastern Road Plan map during their August 10, 1998 meeting. Mr. Wyatt said that Mr. Smith's proposal modifies the Eastern Road Plan map between Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Millwood Pike (Route 50 East). He reported that the main area of concern was the practicality of having two major collector road systems in such close proximity to each other. He said that the CPPS believed it would be appropriate to modify the existing major collector road system in this area to create two north -to -south segments; and, they also believed Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1998 Page 244 -6 - that the extension of one of the two major collector roads to Millwood Pike, thus creating a "T" intersection with Sulphur Spring Road, was preferable to the improvements depicted on the current plan. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering came forward and presented his proposal to the Commission. A summary of the modifications were as follows: The elimination of one of the two new major collector roads between Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road. 2. An adjustment to Channing Drive which is identified as a major collector road to connect Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road. The reclassification of a portion of the new major collector road that is proposed to be eliminated to establish a minor collector road connection from Apple Ridge and Senseny Heights to Valley Mill Road. 4. The extension of a new major collector road from Senseny Road to Millwood Pike (Route 50) which will create a "T" intersection with Sulphur Spring Road. The reclassification of Greenwood Road between Senseny Road and Sulphur Spring Road from an existing major collector road requiring improvements to a local road without improvements. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, but no one came forward. Mr. Tierney commented that he did not dispute that the double major collector was excessive, but he was not certain about some of the other modifications, in terms of where the minors are going, and downgrading, particularly the section of Greenwood Road. Mr. Tierney said that one possibility not explored is allowing the Transportation Committee the opportunity to review this. Commission members supported the modifications, stating that they believed it was a better plan than what is currently in the Comprehensive Plan; however, they did feel it was appropriate for the Transportation Committee to review the proposal and present a recommendation. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby refer the proposed modifications of the Eastern Road Plan to the October 6 meeting of the Transportation Committee and then have the proposal brought back to the Planning Commission with the Transportation Committee's recommendation on October 7. The vote on this item was as follows: YES (TO REFER TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE): Stone, Ours, Thomas, Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Marker, Light, Copenhaver, Morris NO: Miller Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1998 Page 245 -7 - INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNER II, CHRISTOPHER H. MOHN Mr. Tierney, Planning Director, introduced Mr. Christopher H. Mohn who began employment with the County as a Planner II in the Department of Planning & Development on August 31, 1998. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1998 Page 246 BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed September 24, 1998) Ali ti PP c a onnewly submitted. REZONING: Thomas Grove (REZ #012-98) Shawnee 6.008 ac. from RA to Ml Location: Airport Road (Rt. 645) Submitted: 08/21/98 PC Review: 10/07/98 BOS Review: 10/28/98 - tentatively scheduled RT&T Partnership (Kernstown Business Pk) (Rez #011-98) Back Creek 17.84 ac. from B2 to B3 Location: Rt. 11 South; 1/4 mile south of Rt. 37 interchange Submitted: 08/06/98 PC Review: 09/02/98 - recommended approval BOS Review: 10/14/98 W. S. Frey Co., Inc. (Cedar Land Co., L.C.) (Rez #010-98) Stonewall 31.74 ac. from RA to EM Location: Approx. 1,600' east of the Martinsburg Pk. (Rt. 11) & Walters Mill Rd. (Rt. 836) intersection; along & south of Walters Mill Rd. Submitted: 06/05/98 PC Review: 07/01/98 - recommended approval w/ proffers and condition BOS Review: 08/12/98 - tabled witi109/09/98; 09/09/98 approved w/ roffers :1 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Tasker Road Land Bays 1-9 (MDP #004-98) Opequon & Shawnee commercial & residential uses for prop - 1 erties along Tasker Rd; 490 ac.(RP&B2) Location: New Tasker Road (Route 642) Submitted: 05/29/98 PC Review: 06/17/98 - Recommended approval with conditions BOS Review: 07/08/98 - approved with conditions Admin. Approved: 09/04/98 Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 SUBDIVISIONS: Star Fort (SUB #016-98) Stonewall Subdivision of a 2.0213 -ac. lot (B2) Location: Rt. 522 North at Lauck Drive Submitted: 07/16/98 MDP #004-94 MDP Approved by BOS 09/14/94; MDP Admin Approved 04/10/95 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Autumn Glen, Sect. I (SUB 015-98) Opequon 21 lots - duplex & multiplex (52 dwellings) on 14.8 ac. (RP) Location: South side of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642), 0.25 mi. East of Rt. 647 Submitted: 06/30/98 MDP#004-98(Tasker Rd Lnd Bays) MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP Pending Admin. Approval Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Briarwood Estates (SUB #014-98) Stonewall 184 single-family lots on 55.7887 ac (RP) Location: East side of Greenwood Rd. (Rt. 656) midway between Senseny Rd. (Rt. 657) & Valley Mill Rd. (Rt. 659) Submitted: 06/29/98 MDP #003-98 MDP approved by BOS 05/27/98; MDP Admin. Approved 06/29/98 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending 11 Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 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 Chapel Hill Subdivision (SUB #014-97) Shawnee 34 S.F. Det. Urban Lots on 14.4214 acres (RP) Location: East side of Rt. 522, 0.15 mi. south of Longcroft 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 Star Fort, Sect. H (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 (Ml) Location: McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); approx. 1,000' from Tyson Dr. intersection Submitted: 07/28/97 MDP #006-93 Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93 Subd. Admin. Approved:_______,, Pending Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97) Stonewall 75 s.f. zero lot line lots on 20.278 ac. (RP) Location: So.west corner of Baker Ln. (Rt. 1200) & Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322) Submitted: 05/16/97 MDP #001-97 Approved by BOS 04/09/97; Admin. Approved 06/30/97 Subd. Admin. Approved. Section 1 (25 lots) approved 06/02/98; Sections 2 & 3 Pending Wine -Fred Co. IDC (SUB) Back Creek 2 MI Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres) Location: Southeast side of Development Lane Submitted: 09/08/95 MDP #003-87: Approved by BOS 07/08/87; Achnin. Approved 06/08/88 Pending Admin. A Approval Awaiting signed plats. RT&T Partnershi (SUB) Back Creek 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2) Location: Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.) Submitted: 05/17/95 MDP #003-91 Approved by BOS 07/10/91, Admin. Approved 09/03/91 Pending Admin. Approval. Awaiting submission of signed plat &deed of dedication Abrams Point, Phase I (SUB) Shawnee 1 230 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 - approved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 Harry Stimpson (SUB) Op 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:_ I Awaiting signed plat. SITE PLANS: McDonald Chevron (SP #058-98) Gainesboro 1 400 s.f% canopy over gas pum s (RA) Location: Bloomery Pike (Rt. 127) Submitted: 08/28/98 Approved: Pending Kim Henry Property - Mini Warehouse (SP #057-98) Stonewall 7,504 s.f. warehouse; 4 ac. developed 1 of a 7.74 ac. site (B3) Location: Intersection of Baker Lane & Fort Collier Road Submitted: 08/26/98 Approved: Pending Emmanuel Baptist Church (SP #056-98) Gainesboro Addition to existing church; 0.07 ac. 1 developed of a 9.78 ac. parcel (RA) Location: 2774 Northwestern Grade Submitted: 08/17/98 Approved: 08/28/98 Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 aliaferro Dental Office FSP #055-98) Opequon Dental office; 0.8035 ac. developed of a 2.93+ ac. parcel (B2) Location: Warrior Drive, just north of its intersection with Rt. 277 Submitted: 08/19/98 Approved: Pending Denny Derflinger's Warehouse (SP #053-98) Stonewall Warehouse on 2.0707 ac. parcel (Ml) Location: Baker Lane Industrial Park; Imboden Drive Submitted: 08/11/98 Approved: Pending Bo's at Bernstown/ Emmart Oil Co. (SP #052-98) Back Creek convenience store/gasoline sales; 0.846 ac. parcel to be developed (B2) Location: Valley Avenue (Rt. 11), South of Winchester Submitted: 07/24/98 Approved: Pending Blue Ridge Landscape (SP #051-98) Stonewall District General Offices - Landscape Business; 1.22 ac. site to be developed (Ml) Location: Imboden Drive Submitted: 07/27/98 Approved: Pending Moffett Property (SP #050-98) Stonewall Metal warehse addition (4,800 g.s.f.); 1.392 ac. site; 0.465 disturbed (B3) Location: 1154 Martinsburg Pike Submitted: 07/21/98 Approved: Pending Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 Hayfield Assembly of God (SP #049-98) Gainesboro 3,789 s.f. addition to existing church; 3.053 ac. site (RA) Location: 5118 Northwestern Pike, Gore Submitted: 07/20/98 Approved: Pending Trex Company, L.L.C. (SP #048-98) Back Creek 8,120 s.f. addition to existing mfg. 1 bldg.; 16.7184 -ac. site (M2) Location: 158 Capitol Lane Submitted: 07/15/98 Approved: 08/13/98 Stonewall Industrial Park, Lot 31 (Revision) (SP #047-98) Gamesboro Parking Lot Addition to 6.64 ac. site 1 (M1) Location: Lenoir City Co., Inc.; 30 Ricketts Drive Submitted: 07/13/98 Approved: 08/19/98 Abundant Life Church (SP #046-98) Opequon Addition to Existing Church - 2 ac. developed on 17.4 ac. site (Bl) Location: 700 Aylor Rd; East of I-81 on Rt. 647, beside Fredericktowne Subd. Submitted: 06/29/98 Approved: Pending Waffle House (SP #045-98) O equon I Restaurant on 0.5732 ac. site (132) Location: Fairfax Pike, Stephens Cit Submitted: 06/24/98 Approved: 09/17/98 Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 T.P. & Susan Goodman (SP #044-98) Stonewall Hackwood/ Minor Site Plan (RA) Location: 534 Redbud Road Submitted: 06/10/98 Approved: Pending Cives Steel Company (SP #042-98) Stonewall Addition of paper storage bldg.; 1,200 s.f. of 18.07 -ac. site (1%11) Location: 210 Cives Lane (behind Shade Equipment Co.) Submitted: 06/17/98 Approved: Pending Zeigler Mechanical (SP #036-98) Stonewall 22,870 sf mfg./office bldg; 6.809 ac. site (Ml) Location: NE comer of Rt. 11/ Rt. 668 intersection Submitted: 06/03/98 A roved: L06/10/98 nding Frederick County Sanitation Auth. (SP #035-98) Gainesboro Water Storage Tank; 1.85 ac. disturbed of a 2.7 ac. site (RA) Location: Southwest quadrant of Rt. 522 & Rt. 37 interchange Submitted: 06/03/98 Approved: 09/09/98 Frederick Plaza (SP #030-98) Gainesboro One-story bldg. w/ 7,000 sf retail & 2,000 sf drive-thr bank; 1.3 ac. (B2) Location: 263 Swmyside Plaza Circle Submitted: A roved: L04/21/98 nding Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 7/11 Conven. Store w/ Gas Sales - Southland Corp. (SP #029-98) Back Creek 2,808 sf conven. store w/ gas sales; 1.22 ac. to be developed (RA) Location: Intersection of Rt. 50 and Ward Avenue Submitted: 04/24/98 Approved: Pending Blue Ridge Grace Brethren Church (SP #026-98) Back Creek Sanctuary Addition; 1.2 ac, developed 1 on a! 0 ac. site (RA) Location: 1025 Cedar Creek Grade Submitted: 04/01/98 Approved: Pending 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 Southeast Container (SP #001-98) Stonewall District Parking Lot; 0.2 ac. Disturbed on a 89.6 ac. Site (Ml) Location: Ft. Collier Industrial Park Submitted: 01/06/98 Approved: Pending Mobil -Wendy's 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 Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 10 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 Interchg. Submitted: 12/16/96 A roved: L02/12/97 nding 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 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 Apple Country Store) Submitted: 07/03/96 [Pending Approved: Penduig AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP #022-96) Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a 0.916 acre parcel (RA) Location: 3548 North Frederick Pike Submitted: 05/08/96 Approved: Penduig Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 11 American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 acre site (B2) Location: 1730 Berryville Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Pending Wheatlands Wastewater Facility (SP #047-89) Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (115) Location: So. West of Double Tollgate; adj. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: Being held at applicant's request. Flex Tech (SP #057-90) I Stonewall MI Use on 11 Ac. (MI) Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Being held at applicant's request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 12 Boyd L. Bloomer (CUP #006-98) Stonewall public garage w/o body repair; construction of 36X48 bldg. (RA) Location: 4784 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook Submitted: 09/01/98 PC Review: 10/07/98 BOS Review: 10/28/98 - tentatively scheduled Appleland Sports Center (CUP #005-98) Back Creek Amend existing approved CUP to allow go-carts, ice cream/food concessions, water slide, par 3 golf course Location: 4506 Valley Pike Submitted: 08/06/98 PC Review: 09/02/98 - reconunended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 10/14/98 America House Assisted Living (CUP #003-98) Opequon Assisted Living Facility; construction of a 41 -room facility (RP) Location: NE of Stephens City on south side of Rt. 642; 1,000' east of Rt. 647 & 4,000' west of Rt. 636 Submitted: 07/10/98 PC Review: 08/05/98 - Recommended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 09/09/98 - Approved w/ conditions Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 13 VARIANCES: Gary & Dora Miller (VAR #025-98) Back Creek 60' side yard setback var. for a mobile home (ad'. to agricultural land) (RA) Location: 2732 Laurel Grove Road (Rt. 629) Submitted: 08/20/98 BZA Review: 09/15/98 - approved Katherine B. Casilear (VAR #024-98) Back Creek 6' 10" & 4' 10" rear yd. var. for addition to existing house (RP) Location: 163 Stuart Drive; Jackson Woods Estates Submitted: 08/14/98 BZA Review: 09/15/98 - approved Debbie Kloe el (VAR #023-98) Opequon 1 4" side yard var. for existing residence Location: Greenbriar Village, Sec. 3, Lot 314; Tern Avenue Submitted: 07/31/98 BZA Review: 09/15/98 - approved Bimonthly Report Printed September 24,1998 14 Ralph Gregory (VAR #020-98) Opequon front setbk var.(s) & variances from 06/26/98 08/18/98 - tabled until 09/15/98; 09/15/98 - denied requirmts. of zon. dist. buffers (B2/RP) Location: W. Side of Aylor Rd. (647) at interscan w/ Double Church Rd. (641) Submitted: 07/24/98 BZA Review: 08/18/98 - approved front setback variances; tabled zoning district buffer variances until 09/15/98; 09/15/98 - tabled zoning district buffer variances until on or before 12/15/98. Gainesboro LAppeal the approval of a building rmit 631 Light Road 06/26/98 08/18/98 - tabled until 09/15/98; 09/15/98 - denied Bimonthly Report Printed September 24, 1998 15 PC REVIEW: 10/07/98 BOS REVIEW: 10/26/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #006-93 BOYD L. BLOOMER Public Garage Without Body Repair LOCA'T'ION: This property is located at 4784 Martinsburg Pike. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 24-A-9 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA(Rural Areas) and B2 (Business General) District; Land Use: Residential, Agricultural, and Commercial PROPOSED USE: Public garage without body repair REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. However, prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the state's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 311, Use Group S (Storage) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996. Other codes that apply are CABO Al 17.1-92, Accessible and Useable Buildings and Facilities. Handicap parking and access to the building shall be provided according to the BOCA code (minimum one van accessible space and unloading area). Fire Marshal: Fire Department access must be maintained at all times. Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to Mr. Bloomer's proposal Boyd L. Bloomer CUP #006-98 Page 2 September 24, 1998 subject to the following conditions: 1. Only occupants of house on property are to be employed at the business; no outside employees. 2. The garage building is to be located no further towards the rear of the lot than shown on the attached sketch by Mr. Bloomer. Moving the building further back would encroach on the drainfield. Planning and Zoning: Public garages without auto body repair are permitted in the RA Zoning District with an approved CUP provided that all repair work takes place entirely within an enclosed structure and all exterior storage of parts and equipment is fully screened from view from any adjoining property. The requested activity will occur within a proposed 36 -foot by 48 -foot building, to be located behind the existing two-story residence. This proposed building would be set back approximately 100 feet from Martinsburg Pike, and 20 feet from the adjoining property to the south. The properties immediately surrounding this proposed auto repair facility are comprised of agricultural, residential and commercial uses. The properties located directly west, across Martinsburg Pike from the site, is zoned B2 (Business General). These B2 properties contain the Winchester Auto Auction and Vernon E. Stup Co. (Case Construction & Utility Equipment). The proposed CUP would be appropriate adjacent to these existing businesses. The adjacent property to the south and north are residential. The proposed building would be placed close to the southern property line, possibly impacting the adjoining property to the south. The visual impact of the proposed garage may be mitigated with the assistance of a landscape screen. Staff believes that the establishment of this business would not have a negative impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. Any perceived negative visual impacts could be mitigated utilizing landscape screening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 10-7-98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. 2. All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from the view of Boyd L. Bloomer CUP #006-98 Page 3 September 24, 1998 surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen at least five (5) feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained. Any proposed signs shall satisfy the Cottage Occupation sign requirements. 4. No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be located externally to the garage. Vehicles awaiting repair must be screened from the adjoining property to the south. Adequate screening will consist of evergreen trees (four feet high at time of planting), planted no more than eight feet apart. 5. No inoperative vehicles shall be allowed on the property at any time. 6. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 7. Any expansion of the business shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Q\Agendas\COMMENTS\Bloomer. CUP Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE ` 7 o a5< 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of she property: a �3 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) In T-1 4. The property has a road frontage of --- feet and a depth of — feet and consists of ~,q. ,; A (Please be exact) r;`r 5. The property is owned by 1 as evidenced by deed from S;�t i _ recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. —7 —7 on page 1'-+75'6j as recorded in the reccrds of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 12 u- 14, Magisterial District s"rccL Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: USE North � ZONING East South West Z'::; = 'mac f Vq C w - 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: p 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 i ; { 1` OU ' ri ADDRESS 15-7 PROPERTY NAMES �� v? r n M ,'jyja i. °^�3 ADDRESS PROPERTY NAME. PROPERTY ID7f � NAME ,�, �; ja ; y'o > �1 PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS}+` - ADDRESS �_ 3 r NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY IDI ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 12. Additional comments, if any: W -e (, ' �h � (1 �rCrfLL4V a V�+�� �C✓`�Ic�Gs�C� &` l`�-�t�r�a P}JCCt✓` rJU3 i 61 LoC `t r �;�- 1 s de- S a r-a,� (4R 4C 2.55 C� ' I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. 11. Please use is page for your sketch oi the prope ;-, -{ Proposed and/or existing structures on the propert", jncl.i� j _n r measurements to all property lines. 7 Uti { / Y.. 11171L/7 ai c> 17441 71N u r l rY�tIJId PL- P�AQ {� •{ Gtib I r,j 'l.l. 1 t h,;,-F-- Lj 1 G yl 7 _T! ` 1— �t , nyJh I lSOI Y6 -'- i iix+!y _ �*` 44.1 �j 1f1 #v2. ros I Ina r a-ebrgvA) i). e O -715 Aq Ina r a-ebrgvA) i). e O -715 PC REVIEW: 10/07/98 BOS REVIEW: 10/26/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #007-98 RICKY LEE PITTS Public Garage Without Body Repair LOCATION: This property is located at 4445 Back Mountain Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 58-1-1 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Minebank Hunt Club, Residential, and Mountain Falls Park PROPOSED USE: Public garage without body repair REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept of Transportation: Existing private entrance is inadequate for proposed use. Minimum sight distances are not obtainable at the property to allow for the construction of a commercial entrance without the removal of vegetation along Route 600 (Back Mountain Road). Also, existing entrance must be upgraded to conform with VDOT minimum standards. Therefore, we cannot support a conditional or special use permit for this property at this time. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 311, Use Group S (Storage) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996. Other codes that apply are CABO Al 17.1-92, Accessible and Useable Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan of the existing building for review at the time of change of use permit application. Handicap parking and access shall be provided to the structure. Fire Marshal: No comments. Recommend plan approval. Ricky L. Pitts CUP #007-98 Page 2 September 24, 1998 Health Department: The Health Department has no objections to the issuance of this conditional use permit as proposed. Sewage flow to the existing on-site sewage disposal system would not be increased since restrooms will not be provided for public use, and the operation will be limited to one employee who lives at the existing residence. Planning and Zoning: Public garages without auto body repair are permitted in the RA Zoning District with an approved CUP provided that all repair work takes place entirely within an enclosed structure and all exterior storage of parts and equipment is fully screened from view from any adjoining property. The requested activity will occur within an existing 30'x 56' building; no new buildings are proposed. The existing building is located adjacent to property Owned by a hunt club. This property is heavily wooded. In addition, locating the parts, equipment and vehicles awaiting repair to the rear of the garage, and implementing the required screening will further minimize the impact of any activity on the Pitt's site to the adjoining properties. Staff believes that the establishment of this business would not have a negative impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 10-07-98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. 2. All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from the view of surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen at least five (5) feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained. 3. Any proposed signs shall satisfy the Cottage Occupation sign requirements. 4. No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be located externally to the garage. Vehicles awaiting repair must be located to the rear of the building. 5. No inoperative vehicles shall be allowed on the property at any time. 6. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 7. Any expansion of the business shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting 0-r.7" APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA I. Applicant ,(The aprrplicant if the owner other) NAME: R/ c % V L ' o► ADDRESS: TELEPHONE ,5 5eO - 5?"7 -7 2 Z 602—.3.06 2.Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of thetproperty: I 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) R KF 41 L. 4. The property has a road frontage offeet and a depth of 6g,? feet and consists of, acres. 719 (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Ckas FF/7n t evidenced by deed from d recordede d (previous owner) in deed book no. —��Q on page 016 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. S $ ` I- 1 22 7. 14 --Digit Property Iden Magisterial District Current Zoning Adjoining Property: i\rl`Nk �USE- North /'/1+VFID/grf,C t� K/uT C(uB East f%ieRi'i�--� South West -0 NT NG 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) �\ rt J Qu L - k &C W { OvT LO 2.r-QAt 7L 9. It is proposed that the foll�wing,buildings will be constructed: fv i_� i `//J(� F '.i MiA, rn+ --7., i/ .0, , r� / 10. The following are all. of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning proprty 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: ADDRESS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY NAME �� /ADDRESS DD PROPERTY • NAME1 �iQ�� �ijT..�si�-mss iADDRESS PROPERTY NAME C aw, DRESS • E1' • ADDRESSPROPERTY NAME i ADDRESS PROPERTYf5'75 J ADDRESS 12. Additional comments, if any: J I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. 67T0- g`%% - 1 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: 0�ti DIRECTION DISTANCE CURVE TABLE NOTESCURVE ARC DELTA RADIUS TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD N59'36'50"E r44:912- 23' C1 102.52' 06'16'57" 934.93' 51.31' N56'28'22"E 102.46' 1: No Title Report Furnished. N71'26'50E 'S 'QQ 93 93' 9 9' 65'3 'S0 g 5�2• The property shown on this plat is a portion N74'21'S0"E 1.91' C3 144.82' 02'55'00 2844.79' 72.42' N65.31'20 E 144.80' of the some property conveyed by Charles A. Baker and Laura F. Baker, his wife, to - Harold M. Baker and Lola B. Baker, his Qwife, by a deed dated September 12, 1957 �1^ Ci u ct Court of Frederick County,recorded in the Office of Virginiae of a1VTN in ( Deed book 248, P.525. °tea° �5.� �f►� 3. This property may be is subject to the J#Ott �� following Easements: Northern Virginia Power Co. — D.B.202, P.384 ti• - ENiott Ritchie. Jr z Northern Virginia Power Co. — D.B.243, P.427 s C & P Telephone Co. — D.B.333, P.365 i LICENSE No Potomac Edison Power Co. — D.B.501, P.673 Q- 1318 Bell Atlantic — D.B.888, P.176 �� 4. The property shown on. this plot is located in og?spank h !, �j�'4 ypZona "C", as shown on HUD Flood Insurance IPF ? >> °t grub / sg,; ha SuayE Rate Map, Community—Panel Number J \y> 510063 0100 B, effective date of eoz""• L t oc Q' July 17, 1978. �O N1, a ` Bldgi' Storage IPF Marbert IPF N Bldg S29•J 08. 6 . Sfoot/er Cl j Well 2 4S` P 4Q0 fOr tp ll 1 story X268 Tel -m Inyl Siding 9\ W/ am't. Res.J4445 \ LO U H �Bidq qe 12.1354 ACRES Found 3 0 `o THE PROPERTY OF IPF x_ Stone O N y� HAROLD Me BAKER Pile y g M37 \ IPS Cd o a AND / 344g"►v N54'00'00"W 918.11' __ 0 04 LOLI`1 Be BAKER 53x'37' — --- IPF IPS in nam BACK CREEK DISTRICT Jack M. Baker IPF Harold M. Baker, r. FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Ann F. Baker Bruce Mason Linda L Baker SCALE:1 = 200' JUNE 25, 1998 D.B.756, P.1676 Janet McLaoughlin D.B.519, P.336 RITCHIE SURVEYS D.B.573, P.801 STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA PC REVIEW: 10/07/98 BOS REVIEW: 10/26/98 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #008-98 MEADE'S FAMILY DAY HOME Day Care Facility LOCATION: This property is located at 150 Twine Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 26 -A -34A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and B2 (Business General) Districts; Land Use: Residential and Commercial (Used Automobile Sales) PROPOSED USE: Day care facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections Department: No comment required provided existing home is licensed as a family day home by the Virginia Department of Social Services. However, if this license is not obtained, a floor plan shall be submitted for a change of use building permit and a new certificate of occupancy shall be issued. Fire Marshal: Plans disapproved. The residence has no defined driveway; the closest road is approximately 150 feet from the dwelling. This would not allow adequate fire and rescue access. On the same parcel of property, there is the burned remains of another dwelling. This would be hazardous to the children and should be secured or razed. Meade's Family Day Home CUP #008-98 Page 2 September 24, 1998 Health Department: See attached letter from John Daley, Environmental Health Supervisor, dated 8-17-98. Planning and Zoning: Day care facilities are permitted in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit. Currently, the property contains two residences that were both replaced in 1994 with new mobile home units. The applicant requests that one of these residences, located closest to Twine Lane, also be utilized as a day care facility. A day care facility is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a facility in which more than five children, not including those children related to the people who maintain the facility, are received for care, protection, and guidance during only part of the twenty-four hour day. The surrounding properties consist primarily of residential uses; a used automobile sales business is located about 100 yards south of the property. Based on the surrounding uses, a day care facility is not inappropriate at this location. Located on the applicant's property, about 30 yards from the day care facility structure, are the remnants of a burnt -down dwelling. This burnt dwelling is not secured and may represent a safety hazard. Additionally, a children's swing -set is located adjacent to the burnt dwelling, possibly encouraging the children to approach this unsecured area. Removal, or enclosing this burnt dwelling, may alleviate the potential safety hazards - Staff believes azards_ Staffbelieves that the establishment of this business would not have a negative impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 10-7-98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The property's location is appropriate for the proposed use. At issue is the safety of the children utilizing the proposed facility. In review ofthe agency comments, the Fire Marshal's Office has recommended that the CUP not be granted due to existing safety issues. If these safety issues are resolved, and the applicant secures the Fire Marshal's approval, staff would recommend that the request for a CUP to operate a day care facility be approved with the following conditions: Satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services. 2. Comply with review agency comments at all times_ Expansion of the existing structure that is to be used for the proposed day care will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Lord Fairfax Environmental Hca.'h Distyict 107 N. Dent St. P 0. Box 2056 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722-3480 FAX (540) 722-3479 Counties of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, Warren, and City of Winchester August 17, 1998 Winona M. Clark 150 Twine Lane Gore, VA 22637 RE: Conditional Use Comments for proposed Meade Family Day Home; Health Dept. ID # 99028925. Dear Ms. Clark: The Health Department has no objection to your proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. The house to be used as the day care center is to have occupancy limited to the following: a. One full-time resident. b. Two teachers working a 12 -hour shift, one being the house occupant. c. Twelve students/children for 12 hours per day. 2. Food service is to be limited to snacks only. 3. The well on the property must meet all the requirements of the Lord Fairfax Health District's Small Waterworks Policy. If you have any questions about item # 1, please call me at (540) 722-3480. Questions concerning food service should be directed to Steve Lee and questions concerning the well requirements can be answered by John Lam, both of whom can be reached at the same number listed above. This letter replaces my letter to you dated 8/12/98 concerning the same subject. The changes were required due to your desire to be open for twelve hours per day instead of eight hours per day. Sincerely, JohnDailey✓ Environmental Health Specialist cc: Steve Lee John Lam TX 5 \ 47 ©I'® 37 \ v - 25 .c 5 y Y McClur ^Q. 4 ti C p n ter 3 34 ope Shuster 34 33 31 30 37A CUP #008-98 Meade's Family Day Hom PIN: 26—A -34A Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development, 9-15-98 1 Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA s R� J MIRX 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: I r ADDRESS: I is i) `]'�[� � n 2 c,- -z o r¢_ , l/� , aa� -7 TELEPHONE (�0 ) gs-rr - a -.) 1,M), 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: a; 4i 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street). 0 -k1 r) L 4. The property has a road frontage of -- 0 — feet and a depth of Z z=' feet and consists of `'- acres. (Please be 'exact) 5. The property is owned by c. as evidenced by deed from recorded J (previous owner) in deed book no. 4--=y ' on page as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District Current Zoning %Z 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North (2,Q East OZ14 r South West 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: I l Z —1 vac, kr- h -e NAMEt = �-A Da, ��on (I.L = ADDRESS L:>Y P� PROPERTY ID# 2(o - A - 3,s -- SCI(.. —tc'.r- rr+ CIF -11 P -J , NAME Lc+- - VolADDRESS W % n , U<-, , a �C� G � PROPERTY ID# Zoo " 4 � 14 re,, Pad Poch [ -z NAME �Qyy-�r.� Q_� . 41 . Ay letee. iLi . �'� qfADDRESS1Y1 t tcL PROPERTY ID# 7 -Ca — A — I NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# �� '17 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 12 . Additional comments, if any: -61.4 of, iod rc�n rk _IO�N +ke— ttic, 4�r IrLul-e-Lj ky" (��I /a vico< I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: r ;. BOOK 4 14 FALL !J� • y s V YDAGEfi LAND ATE R. -� S j,1D 1 „ W _ 334.44 +f' )222,50 4 Ix Z _ - W J s 5.0 2 AC. Lo, u In U-1 } 2 in O Z Q oC 3t W W � • O � 1 1 N „ w t Q1 W W n 1_: v) in 1 a z O LJ a LL -I'll V P S N N �[ I.- .00) - 0 Ott Ax 1 , A I OK83 l PG 1 302 LOT G I I D.B. 697 - P. 595 PARCEL 2 LOT B - D.B. 526 - P. 399 wAM d� w (UCENSE) Na 1498 PLAT OF PRIVATE ACCESS E.1 SEMENT.- DANIEL R. 8 BEVERLY G. LARGENT GAINESECRO DISTRICT FRE�JE 41CIC COUNTY. WRGINIA 15 SEPTEAWER 1994 PC REVIEW DATE: 10/07/98 BOS REVIEW DATE: 10/26/98 REZONING APPLICATION #012-98 THOMAS A. GROVE To rezone 6.008 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) LOCATION: This property is located on the south side of Route 645 (Airport Road), adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Airport Business Center, near the Winchester Regional Airport. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-39 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA, Rural Areas District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District South: Zoned M1, Light Industrial District East: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District West: Zoned M1, Light Industrial District PROPOSED USE: Light Industrial or Office REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Winchester Regional Airport Use: Airport Business Center Use: Residential Use: Airport Business Center 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 Sixth Edition for review. Thomas A. Grove, REZ #012-98 Page 2 September 25, 1998 VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Also, possible left turn lane warrants should be addressed considering the large volumes of traffic entering the potential rezoned property. Fire Marshal: Site plan required to show utilities. Millwood Station Fire & Rescue, Co. #21: No problems with the impact analysis; all items look good. Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer service is available to this site. Capacity is available. County Engineer: The proposed rezoning has adequately addressed the issue of stormwater management. A more detailed review will be made at the time of site plan submittal. Minor correction required on Page 2, under B. Surrounding Properties, .... land to the "west" rather than "east_" Winchester Regional Airport: While the airport does not object to the proposed rezoning, it is in the process of acquiring two acres of the six -acre parcel along Airport Road (Rt. 645) needed to relocate the road as part of an ongoing land acquisition project. This project is ranked #1 of the County's capital projects (attached plat). County Attorney: When signed by owner, proffer appears to be of proper form. Planning & Zoning_ 1) Site History The original Zoning Map for this area (U. S. G. S. Winchester Quadrangle) indicates that parcel 64-A- 39 was zoned R1, Residential Limited District. The Board of Supervisors rezoned this parcel to A2, Agricultural General District on October 8, 1980 during the comprehensive down zoning of the county. This parcel was reclassified as RA, Rural Areas District, on February 14, 1990 as a component of the comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 2) Location The property is located in the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This property is identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as a component of the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Study. This plan calls for properties within this general area Thomas A. Grove, REZ #012-98 Page 3 September 25, 1998 to be developed for future office and industrial use. The property is also identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as a component of the Airport Support Area (ASA). The ASA was established to limit residential development in order to protect fly -over and noise sensitive areas. The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that the primary land use within the ASA should be business and industrial development. 3) Site Suitability The 6.008 -acre site does not contain areas of steep slope, floodplain, wetlands, or prime agricultural soils. The applicant has identified areas of mature woodland along the southern portion of the property int which limited disturbance is permitted by ordinance. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify potentially significant historic structures on or within the proximity of this property, nor does it identify this property as being part of a potential historic district. 4) Potential Impacts a) Transportation: The applicant's Impact Analysis Statement provides average daily traffic count (ADT) information for the development of 148,500 square feet of office space. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5' Edition, states that 2,083 ADT would be expected if the site was developed at this square footage. The most recent VDOT traffic data identifies 1,494 ADT between Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Victory Road (Route 728); therefore, the development of 148,500 square feet of office would increase the ADT on Airport Road to 3,577 trips (or 139%). b) Community Facilities and Services: The Capital Facilities Impact Model was applied to this application assuming a worst case development scenario of 148,500 square feet of office space. The results of this model run demonstrate a negative fiscal impact to Fire and Rescue services for capital costs. The Winchester Regional Airport has identified the need to acquire a portion of this 6.008 - acre tract for the purpose of relocating Airport Road. The Capital Improvements Plan identifies land acquisition and relocation of Airport Road as the top priorities for Frederick County. The Winchester Regional Airport has begun the process for land acquisition in this area; however, an appraisal has not been prepared at this time. The final appraisal for Rural Area District land at this location may be less than the final appraisal for Light Industrial District land; therefore, approval ofthis rezoning application may increase the land acquisition Thomas A. Grove, REZ #012-98 Page 4 September 25, 1998 cost for this capital project. 5) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed, notarized and reviewed by the County Attorney. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to mitigate the impacts to Fire and Rescue services that is consistent with the results of the Capital facilities Impact Model. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 10/07/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The request to rezone 6.008 acres from RA, Rural Areas District, to Ml, Light Industrial District, is consistent with the policies established in the Comprehensive Policy 1?lan,and is in conformance with the development patterns depicted in the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan and the Airport Support Area. The language within the proffer statement mitigates the impacts that would be realized by the Fire and Rescue services should a change in zoning occur. The impact of additional vehicle trips from this site will not be fully understood until a development application is filed; however, the comment provided by VDOT requires the developer to participate in necessary improvements to the road system. While the rezoning is likely to increase the cost of the property needed by the Airport, given the uncertainty surrounding the timing of the acquisition and the actual dollar amount, it is difficult to address this issue at this time. Staff believes that the applicant has reasonably mitigated the impacts associated with this rezoning proposal. 09/22/98 09:46 FAX 5407229335 r9j)kLV,j° PIPE ��- �a FOU VD T LEON . TAE�1� (USED) A. 2072 - � W o WINC.REG.AIRPORT LOT 4 N 54 50'33" W 4Z,. 63' NUMBER DIRECTION DISTANCE L 1 N 46'40'40" W 61.12' L2 N 44.29'34" W 39.03' L3 N J4'1 655 " E 109.81' LOT J. PIPE . FOUNDIA REAMING AREA = 394,3I 1 STORY = 171365.04 SQ.FBRICK MG. REANNING PROPERTY OF THMAS A. GROVE, SR MOaILE HELEN S GROVE HOUE D.D. 535 PG 348 \ SEE PLAT !%8 608 PG. 557 TAX PARCEL 64 (A) 39 SNF DELTA= 06'4524' R= 1068.00' a 122.08' vh .�,•, Lz L-243 Bi` ,��."-.. ;y N 41*0652" W CHD= 24,3.72' q LEON W LARGENT D.B. 508 PG. 280 :Af?Frl_-.2iJ BENT ROC? FOUND {USED FOR LJ 4FNO }:- SECON ARY ROUTE fi45 (UrAR1A8LE R/w) , ro Cm DR AIRPORT ROAD ,� VIRGI�ltA .�±Jso ROD FOUN pI, 1001 44 LOT 2 z 0 W W� POWER v POLE o i cr) a Q :4 LOT 1 POWER TEL . 1. TM PLAT 6 THE RESiIiT OF A FZ D SU3RKY CONO4'CTED BY ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES IN JUNE AND JULY 1990 2. THE PROPM TO 6E ACOUMV BY TIE MCME 7M REC40NAL AIMVRT DOES NOT LIE W A 100 WAR n.000 MNI: AS SHOWN ON FMI MAP COMMUNrff PMn / 510063 0115 a .1: 0 = ROD SET 4 STIADI:d AREA TO BE ACMWED BY THE WNCHESTD? l7EC7G1hG4L AIRPORr. 5. REF00 CM fRED RM COG'NTY TAX PARCEL 64 (5) J9. Da 606 PC. 557. D.$ 535 PLAT OF SURWY OF PC 345, T1TLE REPORT PREPARED BY mcES MCCRPORATM NANO LASS TITLE 2.017 ACRE PARCEL NSUMCE CORPORATION. WWW, MA41G1 & IM PROPEW MY BE S1GIECT TO WEluEMs CR RICNTS OF WAY CONKW-V TO BE ACQUIRED 6Y Ta (A) THE NaR1 m Mcm POWER COBPANY RECORDED av 0a 167 Pa 2m THE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT D 177 Pa 553 0.a 184 Pa 144. ANO D:& 22J Pa 369; ANO (8) THE POmmc EXON COYPa1 y Irl D.a 669 Pa 195 SHANNEE mACISTERIAL DISTRICT Z RGHT OF WAY DEDICA70 TO THE COMUONWE4LTH OF WRCIMA IN D.R. 567 PC. 58 FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIN14 & PROPERTY ADDRESS 656 AIRPORT RD, 04CHESTER VIRGINIA SHEET 2 OF 2 LK� ANDERSON Engineers AND Surocyarss ludo. aw ASSOCIATES. Inc. Manners Th m 13251 P45 1 961007.1104 1 ERNST OrL4CM naTr-• n7 nrT CA in .RAN QA DRAWN SCALE DATE DOCUMENT Nd, WE 1"=100' 5 SEPT 9 13181-002 ,�.ALTH p,; f �. 9' ZS lg(, -)GREGORY C. PERKINS �- No. 1968 4 F*DURv�.�O I� 9N W. LARGE �B. 508 PG. 280 LOT 4 N 5,4 S1 ~' ., p i"J rte' GARAGE REM RTY OF THOMAS A. GROVE, SR. HELEN S. GROVE �� II D. B. 535 PG. 348 SEE PLAT D. B. 608 PG. 557 i TAX PARCEL 64 (A) 39 I It It 022 C ( I j N 46'40'40' W 5.35 N 45'41 '37" W _ 8. 06'45'24 " R = T = 116.17' L = 232.08' N 41'0652" W CHD = 231.95' 9T 3 • W PIPE 8a 56,09 P1Pl FOUND N FOUNT I STORY BRICK DWLG Cj MOBILE [ HOME METAL SHED Q t = 04-17'2; I IR- T = 76.10' L = 152.12' N J8'1 4'40' W ICHO = 152.08 LOT 2 LOT 1 BENT ROD FOUND si$ (USED FOR LINE) _ _ --@T 1 - -' - - VIRGINIA SECONDARY ROUTE 645 (VARIABLE �w) �3�,� pR ,gIRPORT ROAD1 _ - - - - - — — — — TO ROD FOUND - PK NAIL • Roo IIS PLAT IS .INE RESULT OF A HELD SURVEY CONOUC7ED BY ANDERSON do ASSOCIATES FOUND 5.88' FOUND VE AND JULY 1996. LIE PRCPERTY TO BE ACOUIRED BY THE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT DOES NOT UE = _ 100 VM FLOOD ZONE AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP COMMUIVAY PANEL 151006.3 0115 B. N 34-11 55_ E Roo SET 2.25' i40ED AREA TO BE ACQUIRED BY WE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 91RENCES: FREDERICK COUNTY TAX PARCEL 64 (5) 39, O.B. 606 PG. 557, D.B. 535 DETAIL SCALE : I* = 25' f5, IDLE REPORT PREPARED BY WLES INCORPORATED REPRESENTING LAWYERS TITLE ONCE CORPORATION, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA PLAT OF SURVEY OF IIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO EASEI, mn OR was OF WAY CONVEYED T0: (A) 0.936 ACRE PARCEL ORTNERN VIRGINIA POWER COMPANY RECORDED IN D.B. 167 PG. 200, D.B. 177 PG. W. TO BE ACQUIRED BY 184 PG. 144, AND D.B. 223 PG. 369; AND (B) TW POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY IN 69 PC 195 THE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT CHT Or WAY OEDIATED TO W COMUL'AletAL7 i OF V'7R'GINL4 W D.B. 567 PG. 56 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ZOPERTY A00RESS: 656 AIRPORT RD, WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA REVISED DATF- 07 Or_T 96 �ANDERSON Engineersib9: ;C ANSSurveyors uta+... wvA ASSOCIATES, Inc. TR-cn:m TH DRAWN SCALE Lz DOCUMENT NO. MJE I I Cl- 04 POWER v a POLE 0 W IR, � ? o m a n � u a Q LOT 1 BENT ROD FOUND si$ (USED FOR LINE) _ _ --@T 1 - -' - - VIRGINIA SECONDARY ROUTE 645 (VARIABLE �w) �3�,� pR ,gIRPORT ROAD1 _ - - - - - — — — — TO ROD FOUND - PK NAIL • Roo IIS PLAT IS .INE RESULT OF A HELD SURVEY CONOUC7ED BY ANDERSON do ASSOCIATES FOUND 5.88' FOUND VE AND JULY 1996. LIE PRCPERTY TO BE ACOUIRED BY THE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT DOES NOT UE = _ 100 VM FLOOD ZONE AS SHOWN ON FIRM MAP COMMUIVAY PANEL 151006.3 0115 B. N 34-11 55_ E Roo SET 2.25' i40ED AREA TO BE ACQUIRED BY WE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 91RENCES: FREDERICK COUNTY TAX PARCEL 64 (5) 39, O.B. 606 PG. 557, D.B. 535 DETAIL SCALE : I* = 25' f5, IDLE REPORT PREPARED BY WLES INCORPORATED REPRESENTING LAWYERS TITLE ONCE CORPORATION, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA PLAT OF SURVEY OF IIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO EASEI, mn OR was OF WAY CONVEYED T0: (A) 0.936 ACRE PARCEL ORTNERN VIRGINIA POWER COMPANY RECORDED IN D.B. 167 PG. 200, D.B. 177 PG. W. TO BE ACQUIRED BY 184 PG. 144, AND D.B. 223 PG. 369; AND (B) TW POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY IN 69 PC 195 THE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT CHT Or WAY OEDIATED TO W COMUL'AletAL7 i OF V'7R'GINL4 W D.B. 567 PG. 56 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ZOPERTY A00RESS: 656 AIRPORT RD, WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA REVISED DATF- 07 Or_T 96 �ANDERSON Engineersib9: ;C ANSSurveyors uta+... wvA ASSOCIATES, Inc. TR-cn:m TH DRAWN SCALE DATE DOCUMENT NO. MJE I 1 "=100' S SEPT 9q 13281-002 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.-=" - Zoning Amendment Number Date Received'"�` PC Hewing Date - 90 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"?. -�, ��.�.1..0 Telephone:�yQ1 Address: 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: 100�c .�,�s �Telephone: Address: `5�e., _nom `QA , 1D11„11I- 3. Contact person if other than above Name: M,.-��,�co � .LJZZ , Telephone: (syab �,��-579a 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Agency Comments Plat ✓ Fees �L Deed to property ,/ Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid _ / Proffer Statement 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: -QIA B) Proposed Use of the Property: to I, 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ��.s�+`llc C.aomc�•oa ZONIN 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): sctaer� C: 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 Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number y (( - ?s;q Districts Magisterial: Lj,,®,,,�,�� Fire Service: C,,,,,,,�L�/o� Rescue Service: ,_-* ti High School: _ Middle School: _ Elementary School: 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning°;;, proposed . 'r Single Family homes: Non -Residential Lots: Office: -(a-ms Retail: Restaurant: Number of Units Proposed Townhome: Mobile Home: Square Footage of Proposed Uses 13 Multi -Family: Hotel Rooms: Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other: 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Date: An / Date: Owner(s): �i����•- - Date: 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 Address Name `.,, o \ �y a0JC7�G�3�ac' OtiGO��Gt�a.� ��c�Oc�' Pro e # Q c Name `=►*1.a^5c ic�e,�v�e o"iQ.(.oa Property# Q cc6'o �- il5) - Name/lc. /�cS. �co�a. �• °sc�aLr-� 1�3� �ecs�aW �ro�`�e l�vs. Property # - 4-q -1 - Name' a�r�,sx-mac �c�» 1 �~ �'►+�e�i,cxv�eewc Property Name \-A Property T Name /!/, c ,cc�e.v�s 5 317 �j,wac�-.acc Property Name Property # Name Property Name Pro em Name Propem 15 PROFFER STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for PARCEL ID - 64 - ((A)) - 39 Shawnee District Frederick County, Virginia June 29, 1998 Prepared for: Mr. Thomas Grove 556 Lake St. Clair Drive Winchester, Virginia 22603 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock Street - Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540)-662-5792 Job Number: 9804028 page 1 PROFFER STATEMENT PARCEL ID 64-((A))-39 INTRODUCTION The subject property consists of a parcel containing a total of approximately 6.008 acres. The property is located on Route 645, Airport Road near the Winchester Regional Airport in Frederick County, Virginia. The property is zoned RA_ The property is currently used for residential purposes. The Owner desires to rezone the entire 6.008 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 # ,- ,`� for the rezoning of 6.008 acres on Parcel ID 64-((A))-39 from RA, Residential to M1, Light Industrial, development of this particular 6.008 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 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 $7,074.77 for impacts to fire and rescue services. This sum will be paid upon receipt of a building permit for the first structure to be constructed on the subject parcels. 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 grants 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. Submitted By: Mr. Thomas Grove Mr. Thomas Grove Date: page 2 PROFFER STATEMENT -- PARCEL ID 64-((A))-39 STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this tai day of� � r ��-� by Mr. Thomas Grove c: My commission expires on gig=mtsslon expires May 31, 2001 Notary Public page 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT A PROPOSED REZONING for PARCEL ID - 64-((A))-39 Shawnee District Frederick County, Virginia August 18, 1998 Prepared for: Mr. Thomas Grove 556 Lake St. Clair Drive Winchester, Virginia 22603 Prepared by: PAINTED-LEWIS, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: (540)-662-5792 Job Number: 9804028 IWACT ANALYSIS STATE]"m'vT PARCEL ID: 64-((A))-39 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS section page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 A. SITE SUITABILITY 1 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 2 C. TRAFFIC 2 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 3 E. WATER SUPPLY 3 F. DRAINAGE 3 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 4 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 4 I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 4 J. OTHER IMPACTS 4 APPENDIX 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATET �'�iT PARCEL ID: 64-((A))-39 L INTRODUCTION The subject parcel contains a total of 6.008 acres_ The property is located on Route 645, Airport Road near the Winchester Regional Airport in Frederick County, Virginia. The property is currently zoned RA and it is used for residential purposes. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the property. The Owner desires to rezone the entire 6.008 acre parcel to M1, Light Industrial District. The intended purpose for the rezoning of the subject parcel is to promote the highest and best use of the land. The proximity of the parcel to roads, utilities and commercial development creates circumstances favorable for development as allowed under the M1 zoning category. A. SITE SUITABILITY The site is well suited for development. According to the 1998 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, the property is within the Urban Development Area. The property also lies adjacent to the Airport Business Center and is included within the "Airport Support Area". The property is located between the Winchester Regional Airport and Route 50. The proximity of the property to Route 522, Route 50, Interstate Route 81 and the airport makes it highly` desirable for commercial development. The site is also generally identified for "office/industrial' development in the "Route 50 East Corridor" land use exhibit contained in the Comprehensive Plan - 10 0 lan_ 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FIRM Community Panel Number 510063 01158 shows the parcel is not within designated areas of the 100 year flood. WETLANDS No wetlands have been identified on the site. A shallow pond exists on the eastern portion of the parcel. However, 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. The land is situated near the top of a ridge and is gently sloping toward Buffalo Lick Run. Slopes are less than 15.0%. MATURE WOODLANDS The site contains approximately 1/2 acre of mature woodlands along the southern portion of the property. These woodlands contain predominantly oak, cherry and hickory with miscellaneous other hardwoods and understory trees. SOILS According to the Soil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following coil types: Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 2-7%, (4113) and Clearbrook Channery silt loam, (9C). 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 page 1 �� fJJ IMPACT ANALYSIS STAT0 ---NT PARCEL ID: 64-((A))-39 of the soils are GM, ML, 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. AIRPORT DISTRICT The subject property is within the Airport District - API as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this district is to prevent the encroachment of airport hazards. The property is within the "Transitional Zone" which fans perpendicularly from the runway center line and approach surfaces. Height limitations will be applied to structures proposed for this property. A portion of this property has been identified by the Airport Authority for potential acquisition for the relocation of Route 645. Please refer to Exhibit 8. 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 is land zoned Ml which is being used for the operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. The land to the west is part of the Airport Business Center which is zoned Ml. The land to the east and south of the property is zoned RA and is used for residential purposes. The adjoining property owner information is listed below. 1. Parcel ID #64-((A))-45 F Winchester Regional Airport 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 3. Parcel ID #64F-1-1 Mr. & Mrs. George L. Henzel 1539 Meadow Branch Avenue Winchester, Virginia 22601 5. Parcel ID 964F-1-3 DeBonAir Development Ltd. 461 Carlisle Drive Herndon, Virginia 20170 C. TRAFFIC 2. Parcel ID #64-((5))--1 Mr. Leon W. Largent 888 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 4. Parcel ID #64F-1-2 Datalux Corporation 155 Aviation Drive Winchester, Virginia 22602 6. Parcel ID 964F-1-4 Mr. Herman Rubenstein 5317 Broadwater Lane Clarksville, MD 21029 The property has over 400 feet of frontage on Route 645 for access. Route 645 serves as a link between Route 522 and Victory Road. Victory Road runs between Route 645 and Route 50. 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 between Route 522 and Route 728, Victory Lane. The Level of Service for the nearest intersection to the property at Victory Road has not been established. As the airport area continues to build out, improvements will be necessary to Route 645 along the frontage of the subject property. 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 page 2 IMPACT ANALYSIS STAT0 "r'NT PARCEL ID: 64-((A))-39 space on the property. The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is based upon the construction of 148,000 square feet of office on the 6 acre parcel. 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 purposes of this report, trip ends will be estimated from the ITE Manual as follows: Average Vehicle Trip Ends per 1000 SF -Weekday: 14.03 x 148.5 = 2,083 Average Vehicle Trip Ends per 1000 SF-A.M. Peak Hour: 1.9,r 148.5 = 282 Average Vehicle Trip Ends per 1000 SF -P.M. Peak Hour: 1.87x 148.5 = 278 The generation of 2,083 trips per day from the property would have a significant impact on traffic movement at the entrance to the development as well as the general traffic flow on Route 645_ Depending on the amount of development of the property, a traffic study may be warranted to determine the Level of Service at the entrance. These issues would have to be addressed during the site planning process. Improvements to Route 645 which could potentially be required by VDOT during the site planning process include a traffic signal at the property, a widening of Route 645 to three or four lanes, and a right turn lane into the property. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The current residence on the property is served by a public sewer system. Additional sewage facilities may be required in order to accommodate commercial development on this property. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has a 6" diameter force main in the Route 645 right-of-way. Sewer service could be expanded by the installation of a private or public sewage lift station. 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 northern right-of-way of Route 645 adjacent to the property frontage. Water service has been installed to the property by an extension of the water main beneath Route 645. F. DRAINAGE The site is at the top of a ridge. There are no well defined drainage swales evident on the property. The pond on the eastern boundary of the site discharges across the adjacent property through a shallow drainage swale. There are no permanent or intermittent streams on or near the site. The nearest perennial stream is Buffalo Lick Run approximately 1500 feet to the south. An increase in storm water runoff can be expected with any development on the property. Storm water management will be provided in accordance with the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165. It is anticipated that the existing pond could be reconstructed to provide storm water detention to serve the site. page 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATO `r'NT PARCEL ID: 64-((A))-39 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 of 148,000 square feet can be estimated based at 250 pounds per day. Tipping fees are $35.00 per ton. Collection fees are $25.00 per ton. The annual cost projected to meet waste disposal needs can be estimated by: cost = cost per ton of waste x tonnage $2,735.50 = $60.00 x (250 lbs) x (112000 lbs/ton) x 365 days/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 two miles 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 3. I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES EDUCATION No impacts to education facilities are anticipated. EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriff s Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company No. 18 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 $7,074.77. 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 $0.00. J. OTHER IMPACTS Interviews with county staff indicate that no additional impacts are required to be addressed. page 4 IlVIPACT ANALYSIS STATET ---NIT PARCEL ID: 64-((A))-39 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT APPENDIX item EXHIBIT 1 LOCATION MAP I EXHIBIT 2 PROPERTY MAP 2 EXHIBIT 3 HISTORIC STRUCTURES 3 EXHIBIT 4 FISCAL IMPACT MODEL 4 EXHIBIT 5 CURRENT TAX STATEMENT 5 EXHIBIT 6 PROPERTY DEED 6 EXHIBIT 7 PROFFER STATEMENT 7 EXHIBIT 8 AIRPORT EXHIBIT g page 5 21\r. PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. PROJECT_ DATE 05/19/98 LOCATION IAP SURVEY- NA 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 A PROPOSED REZONING DRAWN= JCL EXHIBIT: Telephone (540)662-5792 PARCEL 64-((A))-39 SCALE 1"=2000' 1 Facsimile (540)662-5793 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA C_I_: 10, JOB NO.: 9804028 11f �� • _ �QQ/ I r �JNTER C •\ /�e vyll �¢ �G ' t' X 771L ale /f rPoff S Valfej/� IIt• / _ �`�*�$ s • - Q Z9 5 � �;' /Gblf Cl,; M ,/ o `\ ', J •r'• _ 645 •� i -/-� J _% A�1 �G v �l! i; W.inchester. nidpal �`, �.~��,j►r�t r ��J p ( .� - '�1�, \Airport — �~ ^� v 0750 7i�i� `�✓`�n j '�,`, 735 _•�� ` .` •H V _ yy�1J1J. q9, ,; .. �' � . tTq ���--, �, � ;;� ,ti � �: � .. d' -- ,: � � ^_ •.yes .—� ��)/ ,gg _, - 723 ► � - �_...�• �.� � �J. � [✓�.i`t \ �� ✓�IU n r. I -z, j� Shenandoah C- _ d 'i' �� _�. �' ` �j;� ✓I -Memorial Park iu r 7�3 • y 00 _ Tralt2r' , • _f.i��ii � Park. HOUSE, RTE_ 645 1182 HOUSE, RTE. 645 1185 HOUSE OFF RTE. 522 457 ROSENBERGER FARM 430 FORD HOUSE 329 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. PROJECT: HISTORIC STRUCTURES DATE: SURVEY: 06/18/98 NA 302 South Braddock Street. Suite 200 A PROPOSED REZONING DRAWN: JCL EXHIBIT: Winchester, Virginia 22601 SCALE: 1• = 2000' Telephone (540)662-5792 PARCEL 64—((A))-39 CJ_: no 3 Facsimile (540)662-5793 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JOB NO.: 9804028 JIJN-29-90 MON 10:05 FREDERICK COUNTY 1 54067-80622 --------------------------- ---------------------------- OUTPUT MODULE Net ------------- Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Costs Impact ir�edit Capital 00515 Net Iiinpaj: FI, . Department $163 S1,162 $122 Rescue Department 51,121 Elementary Schools $0 Middle Schools So 3165,511 $0 High Schools so Parks and Recreation g 59,838 10 TOTAL $1,284 52,383,045 $176,512 $0 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM ---------_--- ----------------------- New Capital Costs Not $7,074.77 Covered by county Contributions --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Model Run Date 03/11198 FAW P.I.N. 64-A-39 Rezoning: 6 acres assuming. 148,504 sq.ft. office on 6 acres of M1 Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this 0"I'Dut Moclijle may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days From the model run date. P-01 PC REVIEW DATE: 10/07/98 BOS REVIEW DATE: 10/26/98 REZONING #013-98 CURTIS L. BRAITHWAITE To rezone 38.867 total acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: This property is located adjacent to and south of the Burning Knolls subdivision, on Sunset Drive, approximately one-half mile from Senseny Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 65-1-B and 65-1-B1 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA, Rural Areas District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RP, Residential Performance District Use: Residential South: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District Use: Vacant East: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District Use: Residential West: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District Use: Agricultural PROPOSED USE: 70 single-family detached traditional residential units 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 T.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and Curtis L. Braithwaite, REZ #013-98 Page 2 September 22, 1998 requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Site plan required to show utilities. Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer capacity is available. Cost of sewer pump stations upgrade to be borne by developer. Parks & Recreation: The Parks and Recreation Department has no comment on this zoning request. County Engineer: See attached leiter from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr. dated July 31, 1998. Historic Resources Adviso Board: Comment not required unless owner plans to raze the structure. County Attorney: Suggest section regarding "streets" be more specific as to what will be done; appears too vague. Otherwise, appears to be of proper form. Frederick County Public Schools: We believe the impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the rezoning process. Planning &„Zoning_ 1) Site History The original Zoning Map for this area (U.S. G. S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the 38, 867 -acre tracts as A-2, Agricultural General District. The properties were reclassified as RA, Rural Areas District, on February 14, 1990 as a component of the comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Survey information from the property deeds indicate that these tracts were established in October 1957. 2) Location The 38.867 -acre tracts are located in the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan's Land Use Chapter states that suburban residential development served by public sewer and water will be the predominant land use in the UDA. This chapter also states that land owners who desire to rezone land within the UDA will be expected to assist in the cost to provide new or expanded infrastructure needed to serve their proposed development. Curtis L. Braithwaite, REZ #013-98 Page 3 September 22, 1998 3) Site Suitability a) Environmental - The 38.867 -acre tracts contain areas of steep slope, woodlands, and wetlands. The area is traversed by a perineal stream which drains to the Opequon Creek. b) Historic - The Rural Landmarks Survey for Frederick County identifies the Ford - Braithwaite House (34-1151) on the list of potentially significant properties. The survey states that the structure is significant due to the architectural layout, as well as its use as a hospital site during the Civil War. c) Utilities - Allegheny Power maintains a 150' wide electric utility easement in this area which traverses the southwestern portion of the Braithwaite tract. 4) Potential Impacts a) Transportation: The applicant has prepared an Impact Analysis Statement which demonstrates average daily traffic (ADT) generations and traffic splits for vehicles at the intersection of Sunset Drive and Senseny Road. The most recent VDOT traffic data demonstrates an ADT of 4,779 on Senseny Road and an ADT of 458 on Sunset Drive. Therefore, the proposal to develop 70 single family residential units would increase the ADT on Senseny Road to 5,479 (or 15%) and the ADT on Sunset Drive to 1,158 (or 153%). Sunset Drive was constructed over 30 years ago and functions as a local street. The 153% increase in traffic will have a significant impact to this road system. The applicant has estimated that 90% (or 630 vehicle trips) of the ADT generation from this site will travel west on Senseny Road to the intersection with Greenwood Road and 10% (or 70 vehicle trips) will travel east on Senseny Road towards Clarke County. The estimated traffic split increases the ADT at the Senseny Road/ Greenwood Road intersection to 9,827 (or 7%). Staff concurs with the applicant's statement that this pattern will change once Route 37 is extended and an interchange is provided at Senseny Road; however, the impact in the interim amplifies the need for signalization at this intersection. b) Environmental Features: The Countv Engineer has stated that significant improvements would need to occur within the steep slope and stream area to provide access to residential lots that would be located on the south side of the property. Impacts to these environmental features will need to be determined to ensure that road construction and stormwater management systems do not exceed permitted Curtis L. Braithwaite, REZ #013-98 Page 4 September 22, 1998 disturbance percentages. c) Historic Features: The Impact Analysis Statement states that the Ford -Braithwaite House will be preserved and incorporated into a building lot within the development. The potential exists for this structure to be razed by a subsequent property owner. d) County Facilities and Services: The Capital Facilities Impact Model was applied to this rezoning application. The results of this model run demonstrate a negative fiscal impact to public schools, parks and recreational facilities and fire and rescue services for capital costs. 5) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed, notarized and reviewed by the County Attorney. The applicant has proffered a single family residential use on a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet that will be developed in conformance with a specific design plan. The applicant has proffered to enter into agreements with VDOT to improve Sunset Drive and participate in the cost of providing signalization at the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection. Finally, the applicant has proffered to provide a monetary contribution to Frederick County to offset the capital facilities costs associated with public schools, parks and recreation facilities, and fire and rescue services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 10/07/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposal to rezone 38.867 acres from Rural Areas District to Residential Performance District is in conformance with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Policy Plan's Land Use Chapter. The applicant has attempted to mitigate negative impacts which would be created by the development of this acreage through the items identified in the proposed proffer statement. Staff believes that the conditions specified in the applicant's proffer statement reasonably mitigate the impacts to adjoining properties, the road systems and county facilities and services; however, this statement does not provide for the protection of the historic resource on this property. Language could be incorporated into the proffer statement which would require property owners to obtain county approval to modify or raze the Ford -Braithwaite House. Staff feels that the applicant has adequately addressed the issues associated with this rezoning application with the exception of the existing historic feature. 0:Vlgrndas\REZONE\COMMENTMBRAITH W T.REZ July 31, 1998 Mr. Curtis Braithwaite P.Q. Box 406 Inwood, West Virginia 25428 RE: Rezoning request for 38.867 acre parcel Sunset Drive, Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Braithwaite: COUNTY of FREDERICK (Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of your request to rezone approximately 38.9 acres from RA to RP and offer the following comments: 1. We concur with your offer to improve Sunset Drive. The traffic generated by the construction of 70 single family dwellings will severely tax the existing road structure. At 10 vehicles per day (vpd) per unit the total vpd would be 700 rather than 770 as shown in the impact analysis. 2. We have grave concerns about constructing a road embankment to access the wooded property on the southside of the major drainage ravine. Based on available United States Geological Society topographical maps, it appears that an embankment approaching 30 feet would be required to provide satisfactory road grades. Large pipes or box culverts would be required to accommodate stormwater flows. These stormwater structures would need to be designed to insure that the 100 year storm flows would not adversely impact the upstream property owners. 3. Regarding environmental impacts, the development of the site may be affected by the county ordinance related to the disturbance of woodlands. The current ordinance limits disturbances to 25 percent of the wooded area. This requirement may limit the number of houses that can be built on the southside of the site. 107 North Kent Street . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0652 Sunset Drive Rezoning Page 2 July 31, 1998 Please contact me at (540) 665-5643 if you have any questions regarding the above continents. Sincerely, HarveY E. Vrawsayder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/kch cc: file irk 107 North Kent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZ #013-98 PIN: 65-1—B & B1 Curtis L. Braithwaite Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development, 9-21-98 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA a be -,co leted P�annin St mP, by ozung AmendmeniNumber '" Date Recelvec " HearinDate A 3 - ' 1 OS Hearin Date _ 3 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: �e �5 L , /3 � l.�di ! % Telephone: -3c4 - 2-y7 - lyl ,:3 Address: t' • 0. , Z/ 0 & 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: Name: A4 i Al • A2 -i z- Telephoner 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement`, v �0 �`' , 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: CUR -TI 5 1- . r�2ft►-rHU-)A ITG- 6. A) Current Use of the Property: _ K R — � G 5 ► �p� 7 I r" B) Proposed Use of the Property: 1;� 1 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING VA CAN r ? OA G 5- ((A15�1 (-T-72-1 4 4 G2IGoLrJ2E RA 47 109 ?F51 PEt lTiAL RP (5.c}1 R E-5 ► t7EN T'OL, RA � 5F✓ - ► - C- 1 OZ, 103 R ES 1 f-?6NThi L R P r2- 1, 3, 5� 71 QI✓ s �Enr t�� R P 1 11, 13, 15, 171 191 VA �3 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): 0.7 14, Ler--5 EA ST ON 5EN,5FN y / D q C,> (TRT 6 57 MOM //ITE,R,5CGTI ON W / rH 66LONWOO C%zOR� (,i?T 6 :50 7"0 5UN5E7- TJ,el V6 VIZI V6- D. 3 W6e5 /2T 8/2), 5007-h 0,1 Suh5e7` To / `I -,S END, 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 IdentificationlLocation: Parcel Identification Number 66 /— 45 � SI- ��,��� i tr' i,t Magisterial: High School: SHERANDC Fire Service: _(ar�re&41ooD Middle School: JAA4 F 5 W O OD A1,90CE Rescue Service: (TeamdoopElementary School: SENSEAtY R442::) 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Z-oning Requested 37.7q (D OF !.o-7! RP ,1-38-8(-71 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type proposed: 0 •�� Single Family homes: % D Townhome: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Office: Retail: Restaurant: Square Footage of Proposed Uses 13 rezonin�-, r I INZ Multi -Family Hotel Rooms Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other: 115, 6OO A4 IN I M oM ?Z. 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) Date: Date: Owner(s): 14 Date: Date: 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 Address Name &(?-ff`VF F. E g4)?5,I R .9 Go�E 39-o WEST p,4e t< tNS /%4 1 L L. R o 4D W t NGt-t E STEz , VA Z Z 60 2 Pro e # 5 - CC 3i - C (c,5- ((19))- 72 Name IZuTF-► I�• �iN�ERSc3tJ Zll9 SENSENY ZoHD W IIyCH�STEtZ VA C"— ZName Property# NameEPC7/gR JbRnl /fsGGErtiI,¢n( Z 33Z �1�1_l...T�W tai QdAi7 vvINCHESTE:2 \/.4 Z Z (-05 Pro e # aS - ((A))- Col Name FATR I CIA P. j:;>E7'Atyt e)ZE 3-- O 13tzOH D Av 0 - W tWGHESTSL , VA -Z-Z(CC)2- > -Pro e # G5- ((A)) - G Property Name A[ZTHUR VV. L/EF-M S 1001 unAPItZE L.A;NE Vel I WG H EST K rZ VA -22(.02- 2b0ZName / b 7 UM F/.Q ie' GeJ/NC/ f ESTE/Z 04 2 Z6 O Z Property # 0 5 - GC SO - 4• Name kagAic THD. T 3��4 S. � Property # a 5 - T5- - S Name �jl�NLJGOD �,4,�i L,LG �v�QL1N1�' G. �,yO,v 50 2� 4 EviLt QA! �/� Gi9itlE G(1/NGH�S T�,� V4 Z Z 6d Z Pro erty # (o S - �r!ii�� — � � Name ,$iEl/EeV �f VtcTo1z1,9 /-I, /�A/1G-T� Z 5� SUN 5ET I,7,�! V6' wlivC,, ',S 76Z , V.d 2 Z � b Z Property # Co Name A7t),�i- Z4 vr75e- T T,�r V6' td/NGHESTEZ Vlq ZZ6aZ 1 z `- 5Lw-5e-7- Cp-J/NGH�ST �W ✓4 7260 7 II 1 Property # ✓�F✓- �t'IJJ--C'- /Oaj Name C y1?k76E5 4:!!F. �-= F,qT/Z/c/A PVAIAI II t'rooerty # I �j — C � % ' !1 — % . G i 15 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name y �',�//y / 3�0 ,Sc�/l�Sf//N� �,�1 ✓� i E,� 1,4 2 Z 6 OZ Property # G 59 — ((2)) - P-(•J/A/C/��s Name aENN/s 1"46, S UNSH/NE DZ / VE VA 2Z(.O Z Property # 650 - ((Z' - P- 7 Name rZUA1 UN 6. E 010.5 X &A),4 B / 6a 5 uAlSHIA16 TJQZ/ t/ E I�I//�/CH6 5 T61Z V4 Z2607- Property # %5$- (iZ) - P- '7 Name C6/9RE.VCZ7 E". LAILC57- /62 50AI,- //NE- %�gl V6- tj1,A)��5T6',� Vii ZZt!;02 Property # Name LtJ/��/Cr.� C. ��GOC� /�v� Sc,;,5r`7`/-,v6- 1/1/otIL17/ 5TE--C V4 zZ� 0 z Pro e # (o $,3 /3 Name INA, 2 ,4 C T e. 5CoT T '5741),U oA] VA Z 440 2 Pro e # 66/3 Naroe 6"UL 2. € 4LIr- Doivaf/uE- /80 Ss�%?S�tiN� �/✓E �i�reffE sTEi2 ✓� 2Z��Z Pro e # �STj✓ - ((Z)) -- Name DOAIFojZ D �. f f C0✓ETA l8� 5c��1�ti ntlE" TJt�! V� (it//1/G/,1�5T� Z VA 2ZC-© 2- Property # G 5 )3 ((Z 1 � - Name /V1AQK. 1,�. ZoK 1 S, AAHOKEy lGl�o 5Lw5H1-'v6 T;' -1 ✓E t V 1 N Cf/ES TE,� V,42 2 d Z Property # (D 154?-- Name IWRIZ1<�. /✓i'A2 `� �(E"E'Go,C Zoo OA1 5 � i^fE Wtuctf E"5 i Ez X0,4 2260-. Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Pro errs # 16 REZONING REQUEST PROFFER PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 65-((1))-B & B1 SHAWNEE DISTRICT PROPERTY OF CURTIS L. BRAITHWAITE Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2 - 2296 et. set., 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 #C) -98 for the Rezoning of 38.9 acres from Rural Area (RA) Zoning District to 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 County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the even dialh�rezoriirig°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. The subject property is more particularly described as all of the land conveyed to Curtis L. Braithwaite by deeds from Clarence L. Braithwaite dated March 16, 1989 in Deed Book 707, Page 950 and by deed dated February 4, 1986 in Deed Book 610, Page 374. Both deeds being of record in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. The subject property purportedly contain a combined total of 38.9 acres plus or minus. These two (2) parcels would be combined and treated as one parcel for master planning purposes. 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 Sunset Drive and adjoining properties, substantially in accordance with that shown on the attached addendum "A" - preliminary layout, Curtis L. Braithwaite property. Maximum Density and Housing Type The rezoned property shall not be subdivided into more that seventy (70) single family detached home lots of not less than 15,000 square feet in area and further that no apartments, duplexes, or other multifamily dwellings shall be constructed on the property. Streets A signaiization agreement regarding the intersection of Greenwood and Senseny Roads shall be executed with VDOT. An agreement with VDOT shall also be executed regarding improvements to existing Sunset Drive. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owners of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffer that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 38.9 acres lying south of the end of Sunset Drive, on the southern side of Senseny Road in Shawnee District, Frederick County from Rural Area (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 Eight Hundred Forty Eight Dollars and Ninety -Two cents ($3,848.92) per approved lot for community services in attached addendum "B"--tine-of-issuance-of-each-building pefigi. , REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Numbers 65-((1))-B & B1 Shawnee Magisterial (District PROPERTY OF CURTIS L. BRAITRWAITE Page 2 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors 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: PRO WNER: B : [7`" DATE: Oee NOTARY CERTIFICATE: ! STATE OF VIRGINIA; CITYICOUNTY OF X/! n ch t5r'cr to -wit: /9 The foregoing instrument was acknowled ed before me this Im day of , 19g by Curtis L. Braithwaite. My commission expiresof0 Re 00 Notary Public APMNPLIM "A'' 15�C c 103 N An�zsor� 6MNW00t7 FAM LLC PROJECT SUMMARY TOTAL AREA = 38.9 ACRES +— HOUSING TYPE = SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TRADITIONAL (MINIMUM 15,000 SQ. FT. LOTS) TOTAL LOTS = MAXIMUM OF 70 (61 LOTS SHOWN) OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 15% ML.-IMINARY LAYOUT PIP 707,-PC4 950 P9 610. M 374 TM *65i-1-01 5CALE : I " - X00' PATF-: JIM 10, 1998 5HAW'EE� tl5l"Ct, r-12EM"CK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PROJECT 1985111 NOTE: NUMBER OF LOTS MAY VARY DUE TO FINAL ENGINEERING, SITE CONSTRAINTS, AND MASTER PLANNING. OPEN SPACE C 0.885 ACRES I�] P`T H OF ICHA L M. ARTZ No. 1951 ND SURV��.� FAW-MP AC05 Ebert and Agsooiates Au &Anus, Ea..rm..e.od.ta.. rta. Company uro s�txron+r urnc ot,ar g iaNa+ESiat vtr. z2eot���a lEl 5W 967-322s mFM 5�0-ea7�9te9 ML t-aoo-rs�r�zo ADDENDUM "B" MONETARY IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS BY CATEGORY: Schools & Education $ 3,224.74 Parks & Recreation $ 591.07 Greenwood Fire & Rescue $ 45.09 Total Contribution Per Approved Lot $3,848.92 IMPACT ANALYSIS CURTIS L. BRAITRWAITE PROPERTY REZONING APPLICATION JUNE 16, 1998 This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the eventual development of a single family detached traditional, seventy (70) lot subdivision on 38.867 Acres +- currently owned by Curtis L. Braithwaite. The property is located immediately south and adjacent to Burning Knolls Subdivision, at the end of Sunset Drive, approximately 0.7 miles east on Senseny Road from its' intersection with Greenwood Road, in Shawnee District. Said property is designated as Tax Parcels 65 -((B)) -B and B1 and is located within the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan designed Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area. SITE SUITABII.ffY The site is currently composed of two separate Real Estate Designations. Tax Map #65-1-B is a 37.796 acre tract improved by a Ranch style single family dwelling and the historically significant Ford -Braithwaite house. Tax Map 965-1-B1 is a 1.071 acre tract improved by a mobile home. There are many outbuildings on the subject properties that are used primarily for livestock and storage. The mobile home and many of the outbuildings would be removed during development and the two main dwellings are intended to be preserved and incorporated into individual lots within the development. Near the middle of the property is a perennial stream that flows west to east. This stream and the adjacent slopes will mostly be a part of the required 15% open space. Near the northwest core of the property near the end of Sunset Drive, is a designated wetlands area. This is a manmade pond that has since eroded and no longer holds water. There are also a few ravines which occasionally contain wet -weather runoff. None of these areas are within the 100 Year Flood Plain. The soils on site are composed primarily of the shallow to moderately deep, well - drained, Weikert and Berks channery silt loams. The moderately deep, somewhat poorly - drained Blairton silt loam and Clearbrook channery silt loam account for the remainder of the soils on the site (see 1987 USDA Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia). About 15 1/2 acres of the property, generally located on both sides of the stream are considered steep slopes (above 15%). A significant portion of these slopes will be incorporated into lots with the remainder being a part of the Open Space. The remainder of the property is gentler in slope and comprised mostly of pasture with scattered trees except for about 10 acres of moderately mature woodland located on the southern side of the stream. An electric transmission line is located within a 150' wide easement along the western side of the property. The properties to the west, south and east are currently zoned as Rural Areas (RA) and are either vacant or generally being used for livestock grazing. The properties to the north is the Burning Knolls Subdivision, a single family residential subdivision with a Residential Performance (RP) zoning. There are no dwellings within approximately 100 feet of the boundaries of this site. TRAFFIC Rezoning of this property will generate an impact on traffic along Sunset Drive (Va Route 812) and Senseny Road (Va. Route 657). With the proffered density of 70 single family units there would be approximately 10 vehicles per day (vpd) per unit for a total of 770vpd. The maximum peak hour trip on weekday afternoons would be 4.9 trips per hour (See I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition). Currently, until adjacent properties are developed with connections to other roads, all traffic would be traveling on Sunset Drive to Senseny Road. Participation in improvements to Sunset Drive have been proffered to help mitigate the impact of this increased traffic. According to 1995 traffic county data, 4,779 vpd travel on Senseny Road between Greenwood Road (Va. Route 656) and Rossum Lane (Va. Route 736) at Glenmont Village Subdivision. It is estimated that 693 vpd (90% of the 770vpd increase) would travel west towards Greenwood Road and Winchester and 77 vpd (10% of the 770vpd) would travel east towards Clarke County. The long range plan is for the new Route 37 Bypass to be built to the east of this site and it is most likely that the current and projected traffic patterns would change. The increase in traffic through the Senseny Road and Greenwood Road intersection will intensify the need for a traffic light at that intersection. Participation in the expenses associated with a traffic light is proffered to help offset the impact. SEWAGE & WATER Based on Frederick County Sewer Authority (FCSA) design figures of 275 gallons per day (gpd) per single family unit and the proffered density, it is estimated the development will consume 19,250 gpd of water from the water system and add 19,2500 gpd to the sewage system at full build -out. While about one-third of the site can be serviced by gravity sewer into an existing 8" sewer line near the northeaster corner of the site (located on Lots 21 and 23 of Section D, Burning Knolls Subdivision), the remainder of the site will have to be serviced by a new pump station. All sewage from this site will feed into the existing Burning Knolls Lift Station and then to the existing Greenwood Pump Station. Both stations are near full capacity and will need to be upgraded to increase capacity during development. An 8" water line is in place in and near the end of Sunset Drive. According to FCSA, there is sufficient capacity and pressure for the proffered density. DRAINAGE There are two watersheds affecting this site. A small one of about 10 acres is located near the northeast end of the property. A small, shallow ravine in this area will be a natural location for a detention facility if necessary. The second watershed covers a much larger area of about 290 acres of land that drains into the stream that passes through the site. A detention facility will be necessary to contain increased runoff from development. This facility will most likely be located near the downstream end of the nronerty within the proposed open space and could also provide the potential for recreational activities. SOLID WASTE 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. With a proffered density of 70 units, this development will generate a net increase of approximately 378 cubic yards of solid waste annually at full build -out. These figures are determined from Civil Engineering formulas and Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission 1996 Provisional estimates. HISTORIC SITES The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia identifies the Ford -Braithwaite house on this property as #34-1151. It is a potentially significant site as the structure was used during the Civil War as a hospital and is one of the few examples of a two-story log side passage plan dwelling in this area. The integrity of the structure has been compromised due to bricktex siding and corrugated metal roofing. There are no plans to raze the structure and it is to be preserved by including it within a lot in the development. ENVIRONMENTAL R"ACT There are no know environmental impacts associated with the rezoning of this property. There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including runoff sediment, noise and construction related traffic and traffic movement. These are to minimized by proper compliance with state and local laws for environmental protection. COARKUNITV AND FISCAL IlfACT The fiscal impacts of this rezoning are measured only for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for Frederick County to increase the capacity of Public Facilities. The areas considered are: Schools Parks and Recreation Fire and Rescue The attached impact model forecast shows the net impact of capital costs versus the credit for taxes towards those costs for 70 single family homes on 38.74 acres from RA zoning to RP zoning. The total per unit impact is calculated as: $ 3,848.92 This amount is proffered to the county to offset the negative impact. CONCLUSION The ultimate intent of this planned community is to provide a single family development in a quiet, relaxed neighborhood similar to Burning Knolls Subdivision, with a positive impact on Frederick County. OUTPUT MODULE Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Costs Impact Capital Net Credit cols Impact Fi. Jepartment $192 $1,389 $0 Rescue Department $359 Elementary Schools $93,233 Middle Schools $29,348 $32,184 $225,732 High Schools $135,335 Parks and Recreation $43.288 V-913 141 .175 TOTAL $301,754 $0 $35,486 $266,268 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contributions $3,156.50 NOTES: Model Run Date 06/04/98 EAW P.I.N. 65-1-B and 65-1-81 Rezoning: Assumes 70 SFD on 38.74acres zoned RP. C to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Oucput Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT A CURRENT BOUNDARY SURVEY. IT IS COMPILED FROM PREVIOUS SURVEYS AND DEEDS OF RECORD. OTHER RK f S—OF—WAYS AND EASEMENTS ARE NOT SHOWN. , t^noN C 103 A MR50N H JC O 'hh ti \� I a=NWOOP FAFA LLC 47 �8�SV7 �5 . (PARCEL 45-1-8 ONLY) (NOT WWDING 1.071 AC:' TRACT) S 4:3 5 OLT TRACT 'B" 23.103 ACRES 65--1—B1 610/374 k 1.071 ACRES s5 1 00. RESIM OLD TRACT ° C' 65-1—B 15.764 ACRES '707/" %Q - W. COURSES IN PARENTHESIS C,ROVE ARE TAKEN FROM NICELY SURVEY OF GROVE PROPERTY IN DB 515, PG 824 UNE BEARING DISTANCE Li S 0639'28" E 784.04' L2 S 37'09'21" W 286.14' L3 S 5750'39" E 163.00' L4 N 37-09'21" E 286.14' L.5 I N 5250'39' W 163.00' �4 it D 13 15 ;00• 17 � 9 21 S 27 41'00' w 274.62' N 6Z29'W W 214.30' 1 ACM5 23 4741 CLS15 L, PRATHWA4TM FROMKly W 707, P6 950 TM #65-1-p VVt 61 O, F6 374 TM #65i-1-01 5CALF-: W - 300' PAZ: JUM 10, 1998 %IAV"F- P151MCT, I-W-MMCK COUNTY, MIZGINIA PROJECT #985111 Ebert and Associates An EL Ambrey Hawldas ANoofa Ltd. ConMaW Lo SsRNOac UM ruaW oa o mR 35 M 90SPIIM SWdU ETA, W 22901-4740 TEL 540-867-3= FAX 540 -607 -SIM 70LL FREE 1-800-756-7320 Goo `662 .� \ , BU t �� �/c 6d5 --,:�eM _ actory �k �km ,�..\ � .:"• 1 Ce >`.<�`� u dbud _667•., // h 71 ,.1J� 1 �• �` ' s o =off - ,. � rc» Park "��,r; �•-ei� ' � ` � / � ' 1�,�' •. _ — \ � �3�C Vis."—�� } 525 Gaging Staff it c• J ,663. • .?��C � ',. ..�� //��-r o )od -S ; _ y 669 ` 1, V> •.\ — - / 1 -; '583 `>>—�-�.` ...�\ �' '•,1 -�_�._ _ = 623 - _ ... \. BM fi23 1� f. �_ --�. _ ord '- ' �� _ 655 _ PC REVIEW DATE: 10/07/98 BOS REVIEW DATE: 10/26/98 REZONING APPLICATION #014-98 GREGORY INVESTMENTS To rezone .149 acres (6,502 sq. ft.) from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) LOCATION: This property is located on the west side of Aylor Road (Rt. 647) at the intersection of Aylor Road and Double Church Road (Rt. 641). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-51 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP, Residential Performance District (.149 acres) B2, Business General District (681 acres) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned - RP, Residential Performance District South: Zoned - RP, Residential Performance District East: Zoned - RP, Residential Performance District West: Not Zoned PROPOSED USE: Commercial or office REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Land Use: Vacant Vacant Use: Residential Use: Aylor Middle School Use: Residential Use: Interstate 81 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, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, Gregory Investments, REZ #014-98 Page 2 September 22, 1998 traffic signalization and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Counly Engineer: We offer no comments at this time. We will offer comments at the time of site plan submission. Therefore, we recommend approval of the subject rezoning. County Attorney: Proffers appear substantially correct. Planning & Zoning_ 1) Site History The original zoning map (U. S. G. S. Stephens City Quadrangle) for this area of Frederick County indicates that Double Church Road extended west from the intersection with Aylor Road into the town of Stephens City. This extension was severed by the construction of Interstate 81. The portion of parcel 75-A-51 that was located on the north side of Double Church Road extended was zoned B1, Neighborhood Business District, while the portion located on the south side was zoned R3, Residential General District. The Board of Supervisors approved Zoning Application Number (ZAN) 92 for Ralph S. Gregory on October 5, 1972. This action changed the zoning classification of the portion of parcel 75-A-51 that was located on the north side of Double Church Road extended to B-2, Business General District. The portion located on the south side of Double Church Road extended was changed to RP, Residential Performance District on September 28, 1983 when this zoning district replaced the Rl, R2, R3, and R6 zoning districts. 2) Location The property is located in the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The property has frontage on Aylor Road which is classified as a major collector road and adjoins Interstate 81 along the rear property line. 3) Site Suitabilit-, The property does not contain areas of floodplain, wetland, steep slope or woodland. The Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soil type on this property as Blairton silt loam (313) which is classified as prime agricultural soil. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not Gregory Investments, REZ #014-98 Page 3 September 22, 1998 recognize this property as a component of a historic district, nor does the property contain structures of historic significance. There are no historic features within the proximity of this property that are identified as potentially significant. 4) Potential Impacts A) Adjoining Properties The applicant's impact statement states that the .149 acres proposed for rezoning will be utilized for vehicular access and parking. The predominant land use to the east of this property is residential; therefore, potential impacts from site lighting and vehicular headlight glare may be realized. 5) Capital Facilities Impact Model The applicant has proffered that structures will not be constructed on the .149 acres that is proposed for rezoning; therefore, staff did not apply the Capital Facilities Impact Model to this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 10/07/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Approximately 81 % of parcel 75-A-51 is currently zoned B2, Business General District, and can be legally developed for commercial purposes. The applicant has proffered to prohibit the construction of structures on the .149 -acre portion that is proposed for rezoning. The Zoning Ordinance requires various methods of screening commercial uses and associated parking areas from residential properties, and establishes requirements to control lighting spillover onto adjoining properties. Staff believes that the county site design requirements coupled with the applicant's proffer statement adequately mitigate the impacts associated with this rezoning proposal. O:Wgendas\REWNE\COMMENTS\GREGORY.REZ G REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be, completed liy Planning Staff Zoning Amendment Number -"Date Itaceiveci.. LT PC Hearing D"ate/D- 77-� BOSHearihp Date.��"'07 7 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: Stephen M. Gyurisin Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Telephone: 540-667-2139 Address: 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Ralph S. & Carolyn P. Gregory Telephone: 540-869-3500 Address:P.o. Box 520, Stephens City, VA 22655 - 3. Contact person if other than above Name: S. M. Gyurisin Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map x Agency Comments X Plat x Fees X Deed to property �_ Impact Analysis Statement`' Verification of taxes paid x Proffer Statement y �` 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: Ralph S Gregory Carolyn P. Gregory 6. A) Current Use of the Property: vacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: landscaped area / parking 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 75-A-51 75-A-49 75-A-48 75B -4-A-1 vacant residential/coim residential residential B-2 RP M- M 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The intersection of VA. sec. Route 647 (Aylor Road) and VA sec. Route 641 (Double Church Road) on the west side of Aylor Road and along I-81. ,.T t y vw 12 �- � s 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 75-A-51 Magisterial: opequon Fire Service: Stephens City Rescue Service:Stephens city Districts High School: Sherando Middle School: Aylor Elementary School: Bass Hoover 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. (.1+9 CLcre_5) Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 6502 SF RP B-2 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Single Family homes: Non -Residential Lots: Office: Retail: Restaurant: Number of Units Proposed -N/A Townhome: Mobile Home: Multi -Family: Hotel Rooms: S uare Footage of Proposed Uses - N/A Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: = -- Other: 13 - r 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): Date: Date: _� 'M/ a �3 Owner(s):!' r Date: Date: 4 14 l 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 Address Name Ralph S. & Carolyn P. Gregory I) Property # 75-A-51 101 Carter Lane I Winchester, VA 22602 810 Aylor Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Name Roger L. & Deborah H. Mogue Property # 75-A-49 Name T.W. & Mary R. Patterson 189 North Street #2 Strasburg, VA 22657 Property # 75-A-48 Name George Washington Hotel Corporation 603-A South Loudoun St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 75-A-47 Name Robert L. Hoover 107 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Property # 7413-4-A-1 Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # 15 REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 75-((A))-51 Opequon Magisterial District RALPH S. & CARLOYN P. GREGORY Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2 — 2296 et. sea., 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 # for the rezoning of 6,502 square feet from Residential Performance (RP) to Business General (B-2) 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. M Building; and Structures No structures will be constructed on the 6,502 square feet rezoned to B-2. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTY OWNER: By: ate: By: z - Date. /,o /VC/J" - STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: _ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _j day of t.5.D+z o,�z:z� 1998, by •��i,�h S. Grc�yo.2y MY commission expires 3 e Z NotaryPublic STAT; O L i �iA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUTNY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10 day of 1998, by_ 9-- A- 1-4 My commission expires y - = - Notary Public i. ` z ? r� e !/ -� Impact Analysis Statement Ralph S. and Carolyn P. Gregory property 75-((A))-51 6,502 square feet (0.1492 acres) Residential Performance (RP) to Business General (B2) A. Suitability of the Site: There are no site constraints or features or hazards associated with this site. The site contains no flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes, mature woodlands, and prime agricultural soils or soils or bedrock conditions that will create hazards. B. Surrounding Properties: The adjoining properties are vacant commercial and residential to the north, Aylor Road to the east with residential homes on the east side of the road and I-81 to the immediate south and west. The distance to the residences on the east side of Aylor Road is approximately 100 feet. Since there are no structures planned for the property to be rezoned to B2 the potential for impacts in minimal. A portion of the property will be used for access and parking. Impacts from possible headlight glare will be minimized with site development planning required landscaping and parking space placement. C. Traffic: The 6,502 square feet to be rezoned will contain no structures. No traffic will be generated in association with this rezoning. D. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment: The 6,502 square feet to be rezoned will contain no structures. No sewage conveyance or treatment is required. E. Water Supply: The 6,502 square feet to be rezoned will contain no structures. No water supply is required. F. Drainage: The 6,502 square feet to be rezoned will contain no structures. There are no streams or major drainageways impacted by the rezoning. Site development planning will address future drainage associated with adjoining development. A portion of the property to be rezoned may be used for access, parking and landscaping. G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The 6,502 square feet to be rezoned will contain no structures. No solid waste will be generated as a result of the rezoning. Impact Analysis Statement Ralph S. and Carolyn P. Gregory property 75-((A))-91 6,502 square feet (0.1492 acres) Residential Performance (RP) to Business General (B2) H. Historic Sites and Structures: The 6,502 square feet to be rezoned contains no historic sites or structures. I. Impact on Community Facilities: The 6,502 square feet to be rezoned will contain no structures. There are no local revenues that would be generated or cost of services associated with rezoning the property to S2. 1 THE :NFCFMATIJt. BASEL 0% =t. =_ _ FIELC SURVEY COM=vTEC FESROAR' 9.:998. °. BOUNDARY INFORMATIC14 SHOWN IS TAKEN FROM BOUNDS- SURVEY DATED JUNE 3 199-, AND REVISED FEBRUARY ; , ';98 BY FURSTENAU SURVEYING, STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA. 3. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATE[ =ROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION, ATLAS MAPS AS MAY BE AVA—ABLE - f QR FROM MUNICIPALITIES OR UTIUTY COMPANIES, AND EXISTIN: C DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SUP[EYOR PC�t-`'\M ��GN��-- -- FURTHER DOES STATE THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCUF;iELY AS ,�5•' ��w - '7n ',..Rp p Z c a0`JaPxN`'G -� POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR n;5 NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. - e ���: __ `'' SIN jA,.�1Y 75—A—Sl ,1\ { �„.uL�e��1 Ic P ...... Di( 1 aN i"iwW>`_I me wa as A>883 "5 S47'(--�W.. ARE 7� �'' 7'1 t ` `p 186.54' — — 'f tAN^..APING 3i.1 FULL REEK -_ � - — '^ ��la4i• {a' SOF APEAKE 3 POTOMAC Tc:EPH�:E a WIA €ASEAIEN ( r 6-42 ..:G 1E'U E UnE (U+FRJx, XA.1914) �c ' _ • — - — _ 187.89 1- - UA. SEC. ROUTE 647 uveu—oi lavjx's u+w -1 Vic+ 1`• .m tw ox. n:c�ru) .....- _ ' - ' 172- T �- - _ --�- FDCE 01yAV4ENr aLR AA110.W WY. Pa9.S7) ImyA s m INN- (163.90) CM° CORRUCAiEJ ME' A; PIPE INV, t761 0 n GUY ANCHOR � GAS LINE UARri R INK.' 2 C n 1 ID S 6,502 square feet requested to be rezoned from Rp to B2 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director • RE: Comprehensive Policy Plan Eastern Road Plan Map Modifications DATE: September 22, 1998 The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPP S) considered a request from Mr. Mark Smith, of Greenway Engineering, to modify the County's Eastern Road Plan Map during their August 10, 1998 meeting. The Eastern Road Plan, contained in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, was created to establish necessary arterial and collector road connections and improvements within the county's development area. The plan describes existing and proposed roads according to their functional classification and utilizes the following color scheme to depict these classifications: • Red identifies primary arterial roads such as Route 37 and Front Royal Pike (Route 522). • Magenta identifies minor arterial roads such as Fairfax Pike (Route 277). • Blue identifies major collector roads such as Senseny Road, Tasker Road and Warrior Road. • Green identifies minor arterial roads such as Lakeside Drive, Westmoreland Drive and Farmington Boulevard. Mr. Smith's proposal modifies the Eastern Road Plan Map between Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Millwood Pike (Route 50 East). A map depicting this proposal has been provided which demonstrates these modifications. This map utilizes the same color scheme that identifies road classifications on the Eastern Road Plan and has been enumerated to correspond with the following narrative: 1) The elimination of one of the two new major collector roads between Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Eastern Road Plan Modification Page -2- September 22, 1998 2) An adjustment to Channing Drive which is identified as a major collector road to connect Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road. 3) The extension of Channing Drive from Senseny Road to Millwood Pike (Route 50) which will create a "T" intersection with Sulphur Spring Road. 4) The reclassification of a portion of the new major collector road that is proposed to be eliminated to establish a minor collector road connection from Apple Ridge and Senseny Heights to Valley Mill Road. 5) The reclassification of Greenwood Road between Senseny Road and Sulphur Spring Road from an existing major collector road requiring improvements to a minor collector road requiring improvements. Members of the CPPS expressed concern with reducing the number of major collector roads because the road network was developed to accommodate the number of residences that could be built in this area. The committee felt that it would be appropriate to modify the existing major collector road system in this area to create two north -to -south segments, and felt that the extension of one of the two major collector roads to Millwood Pike (thus creating a "T" intersection with Sulphur Spring Road), was preferable to the improvements depicted on the current plan. Subsequent to the CPPS recommendation, the VDOT Staunton District Engineering Division provided staff with a comment concurring with the applicant's proposal. The VDOT comment stated that two new major collector road systems within the area between Greenwood Road and Route 37 was redundant. The Planning Commission considered this during the September 2, 1998 meeting. Commission members unanimously supported the modifications proposed by the applicant, stating that they believed it was a better plan than what was currently in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, some Commissioners felt it was appropriate for the Transportation Committee to review the proposal and present a recommendation before they took final action. By a majority vote, the Commission referred the proposed modifications to the Transportation Committee for review and recommendation. Staff has scheduled this issue to go before the Transportation Committee on October 6, 1998 and will report their recommendations during the Planning Commission meeting. Staff met with the applicant on September 8, 1998 to discuss the proposed amendments and to review the information and comments obtained from VDOT, the CPPS and the Planning Commission. Staff asked the applicant to develop a scenario utilizing one major collector road through this area which would intersect with Berryville Pike (Route 7), and provide an analysis of this scenario compared to the initial proposal. Eastern Road Plan Modification Page -3- September 22, 1998 Included with this memorandum is a copy of a letter from Greenway Engineering, dated September 23, 1998, which provides an analysis of the scenario requested by staff, as well as mapping which depicts the two scenarios. Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider this information and provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition. A copy of the current Eastern Road Plan may be found on the last page ofthe Transportation Chapter in the Comprehensive Policy Plan for comparison purposes. Please contact staff if you have any questions regarding this agenda item, or if you desire additional information. EAW/cc Attachments U:\Evan\Common\CompPlan\RoadPlan\MODIFY—I . W PD _ ' GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 September 23, 1998 County of Frederick Dept. of Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Va. 22601 ATT: Evan Wyatt RE: Comprehensive Plan — Road Revision Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road Dear Evan: Please find attached two copies of the proposed Eastern Road Plan Change, one that was presented and generally agreed upon by the Planning Commission and staff in our last meetings and an Alternate Two which was a discussed study option to be researched. During our research of Alternate Two, we have established the following points of interest: 1. By moving the major collector road of Channing Drive closer to Route 7 and the 37 Interchange, will produce a traffic movement that would encourage traffic from Route 7 to travel a major collector road to Route 50, which is in and around residential and commercial subdivisions. A better traffic movement would be facilitated with this connection having an intersection stop condition as was proposed in our eastern road plan change. Therefore, by not having the major collector connecting to Route 7 and 50 as a through movement would facilitate the use of Route 37 as the preferred traffic pattern. 2. By moving the major collector of Channing Drive connection to Route 7, we will then have two major collectors in a parallel mode, existing Valley Mill and what we now call Channing Drive. 3. Two major collectors intersecting or emerging near Route 7 (Valley Mill and Channing Dr.) would create some confusion and congested point of traffic flow. 4. By leaving the Channing Drive connection at the midpoint of Valley Mill, half way between Greenwood Road and Route 7, this will help facilitate internal subdivision traffic movement outward to Valley Mill, Route 7, Senseny Road, Sulfer Spring Road, and Route 50. Upon review of the Alternate Two road connection as shown on the attached graphics, we have concluded that the original proposed eastern road plan change, moves and facilitates traffic in a more clear and concise method than the Alternate Two method that we have studied. Thank you for your time in this matter and please contact me should you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Green ay ` ngin, f Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. President Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0632 1 MIEMO)NNDD UM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner H 'A� SUBJECT: 1999 - 2000 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan DATE: September 24, 1998 The Frederick County Transportation Committee held a public hearing on September 1, 1998 for the annual update of the Secondary Road Improvement Plan. As the Commission is aware, staff schedules public hearings at the committee, commission, and board levels to provide an opportunity for citizens to participate in this process. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors adopts a final plan which is forwarded to the VDOT District Office in Staunton for funding allocations. The proposed plan update recommends no new projects for the major road improvement section. The significant changes to the major road improvement section reflect the elimination of the Route 621 project and a new advertisement date for the Greenwood Road projects. The Greenwood Road project has been pushed back nine months with a new advertisement date of 10/99. One previously unscheduled hard surface road improvement project has moved up into the new hardsurface road improvement plan section. Route 629, Laurel Grove Road, assumes its position as a scheduled project based upon its number one ranking as a unscheduled project. With the promotion of this project, Route 689, assumes the new number one ranking. The incidental construction improvement section has been modified to incorporate 12 new projects that are based on VDOT, staff, and citizen input. These projects are anticipated to be complete during the 2000-2001 VDOT fiscal year. One citizen addressed the Transportation Committee during the public hearing requesting that the committee give Route 608 a higher priority on the major road improvement project list. In particular, the bridges and curvature of the road are addressed as soon as possible. The Transportation Committee recommended unanimous approval of the proposed plan update as presented by staff. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider this information and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 FREDERICK COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN MAJOR PROJECTS/ NEW HARD SURFACE/ INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION 1999-2000 Frederick County Transportation Committee (Recommendation for approval on September 1, 1998) Frederick County Planning Commission (Recommendation for approval on 1998) Adopted on , 1998 by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road Width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvement projects. 1"-9.24100.1 +DIR PROJECT ROAD ZMP.R!O VEA� P1r.A -N FRP�ZTROUTE, FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 1 628 Rt. 631 Rt. 732 2410 2.41 miles BC und. const. 2 656* Rt. 657 Rt. 659 4237 1.01 miles SH/ST 10/99 3 647 Rt. 277 Rt. 642 7241 2.08 miles OP 07/02 4 652 Rt. 11 Winchester City limits 4,571 0.52 miles BC und. const_ 5 Warrior Drive, 719 Rt. 277 Rt. 642 NA 1.55 miles OP 03/00 6 608 Rt. 50W Rt. 616 1527 2.83 miles BC UN/SH 7 659 Rt. 820 Rt 7 401 0.2 miles ST UN/SH 8 656 Rt. 655 Rt. 657 3041 1.39 miles SH/ST LN/SH 9 Towns curb and Etter improvements for the Town of Stephens City UN/SH 10 Towns curb and tter improvements for the Town of Middletown UN/SH 11 664 Rt. 761 Rt. 660 1898 1.1 miles ST UN/SH 12 660 Rt. 664 Rt. 7E 1268 2.13 miles ST UN/SH 13 622 Ci of Winchester to Rt. 37 9192 1.03 miles BC UN/SH 14 600 1.07 miles N Rt. 679 to Rt. 684 942 1.93 miles GA UN/SH 15 659 Rt. 656 Rt, 820 401 1.8 miles ST UN/SH 16 657 City of Winchester to Rt. 656 9197 1.6 miles SH UN/SH 17 739 Rt. 673 Rt 522N 2763 1.66 miles GA UN/SH 18 636 Rt. 277 Rt. 642 874 1.6 miles OP/SH UN/SH i9 1 644 1 Citv of Winchester to Rt. 5225 I 4835 I 1.36 miles I SH I UN/SH II 1999 - 2000 Road Improvement Plan Page -2- 1,999— - 200, MWOR FROaCT ROAD 1WROVENEW PLAN (Confinued LRANK I ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 21 622 Rt. 629 Rt. 37 3211 5.86 miles BC UN/SH 22 657 Rt. 656 to Clarke County 4779 2.07 miles ST UNISH 23 641 Rt. 647 Rt. 277 2980 0.68 miles OP UN/SH 24 761 Rt. I IN Rt. 664 2239 1.13 miles ST UN/SH 25 659 Rt. 7 Rt 656 4524 1.09 miles SH/ST UN/SH 26 636 Rt 277 to 1.5 miles south (277) 522 1.5 miles OP UN/SH 27 600 Rt. 753 614 2075 1.8 miles BC UN/SH 28 655 Rt 50E :1Rt. Rt, 656 3176 0.79 miles SH UN/SH 29 642 0.2 miles west Rt. 1070 to Rt. 1031 8046 0.9 miles OP/SH UN/SH 30 661 Rt. 663 Rt I1N 7229 1.21 miles ST/GA UN/SH 31 628 Rt 621 to Cityof Winchester 2722 1 1.25 miles BC UN/SH 32 627 interstate 81 Rt. I IS 5187 0.49 miles OP UNISH ADT - Average Daily Secondary Traffic Tabulation Counts. (1995 Tabulations) DIST - Distance of total improvement length in miles. MAGIS - Magisterial District in which road improvement will occur. AD.DAT - Scheduled Advertisement Date for road improvement project to begin. 656* - Improvements to Route 656 will include the intersection of Route 656 and Route 659, as well as the "S" curve leg of Route 656. 1999 - 2000 Road Improvement Plan MUMSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Page -3- Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non- hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvements are considered by the Road Rating System adopted by Frederick County on October 7, 1997. ABBREVIATIONS: ADT - Average Daily Traffic Count. (1995 Tabulations) DIST - Distance of road segment to be improved. MAGIS - Magisterial District in which incidental construction will occur. AD.DAT - Scheduled Advertisement Date for road improvement project to begin. IM- 2000 NWHARDSUREACE ROAD DROENtEN PLAN RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 1 695 1.09 to 2.3 miles north Rt 522 83 1.21 miles` GA und. const 2 692 Rt. 600 to 1.2 mi. NE Rt. 600 137 1.2 miles GA und. const. 3 625 Rt 624 Rt. 635 150 0.5 miles BC 07/99 4 633 Rt. 625 Rt. US 91 1.4 miles OP/BC 07/00 ABBREVIATIONS: ADT - Average Daily Traffic Count. (1995 Tabulations) DIST - Distance of road segment to be improved. MAGIS - Magisterial District in which incidental construction will occur. AD.DAT - Scheduled Advertisement Date for road improvement project to begin. 1999 - 2000 Road .Improvement Plan Page -4- CTNSCI ElrlULEDYARDSG3i -FACE TIOAID DMPROVEMLNT PROJECTS RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS RATING 1 689 N Rt. 600 S Rt. 600 63 4.2 miles GA 90 2 704 Rt. 683 WV line 174 3.3 miles BC 86 3 618 Rt. 622 Rt. 608 92 3.3 miles BC 83 4 679 0.3 miles west Rt. 608 to 0.5 miles east Rt. 600 94 2.5 miles GA 79 5 676 0.83 mile south Rt.671 to Rt.677 168 0.87 miles ` GA 75 6 692 1.2 mi. NE Rt. 600 to Rt. 671 137 1.4 miles GA 73 7 734 1.27 miles SW Rt.522N to 2.27 miles SW Rt. 522N 99 1 mile GA 73 8 612 Rt. 600 Rt. 600 92 1.6 miles BC 67 9 629 Rt.631 Rt. 625 149 1.8 miles BC 64 10 695 2.3 miles north Rt. 522 to WV 83 0.9 miles GA 62 11 733 Rt. 50W Rt. 707 61 1.3 miles BC 61 12 607 Rt. 600 end State Mainten. 113 0.78 miles BC 60 13 638 Rt. 625 Rt. 759 86 0.8 miles BC 60 14 709 Rt. 636 Rt. 735 133 2.7 miles OP 59 15 636 Rt. 640 Rt. 641 46 1.5 miles OP 59 16 636 Rt. 709 Rt. 735 147 1.1 miles OP 55 17 644 Rt. 50E Clarke Co.69 0.81 miles SH 54 1999 - 2000 Road Improvement Plan Page -5- ii�s�n��► RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS RATING 19 696 Rt. 522N Rt. 694 81 1.3 miles GA 52 20 836 Rt. 11N to end state maintenance 75 0.8 miles ST 49 21 634 Rt. 635 LRt. I IS 180 0.25 miles OP 47 R11 Rt 671 to end J-137 1 0,25 Tnile-, ST ABBREVIATIONS: MAGIS - Magisterial District in which incidental construction will occur. ADT - Average Daily Traffic Count. (1995 Tabulations) DIST - Distance of road segment to be improved. RATING - Point total for road segment based on Road Rating System Policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 7, 1997. 1999 - 2000 Road Improvement Plan INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION Page -6- Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects that cost less than $100,000. Examples involve drainage improvements, site distance improvements, spot widening, replacing overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of cold mix on existing road surfaces. The Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed projects qualifies for Incidental Construction based on the overall scope of the improvement. -,2006 V �,CQTMRUC't`M PLAN RANK ROUTE FROM TO DESCRIPTION MAGIS F/Y 1 661 Intersection Rt. 661 / F-732 New Turn Lane; Widen Railroad Crossing; Enhance Signalization GA/ST 99/00 2 T-1102 Rt. 11 to 0.14 Mi. E. Widen/New Base & Overlay OP 99/00 3 688 at 0.02 Mi. W. Rt 684 Install Drop Inlet & Pie GA 99/00 4 704 I.27 M. S. Rt. 632 to 2.5 M.S Improve Sight Distance BC 99/00 5 600* County wide improvement Install Guardrail N/A 99/00 6 671 0.08 M.E. Rt. 742 to 0.07 M.W. Rt. 742 Improve Alignment ST 99/00 7 656 500'N. Rt. 659 to 1500'N Rt. 659 Install Guardrail ST 99/00 8 631 0.2 M.E. Rt. 628 to 0.27 M.E. Widen Shoulder BC 99/00 9 689 Rt. 600 to 1.93 M.S. Spot Widen GA 99/00 10 College Park Subd. Improvements 165 lbs. Plant Mix SH 99/00 11 Wakeland Manor Subd. Improvements 165 tbs. Plant Mix SH 99/00 12 621 0.90 Mile South Route 50 Rubberized Crossing & Flashing Lights BC 00/01 13 641 From Rte. 636 to 0.15 Mile E. Rte. 636 Realign Road to South to Improve Sight Distance OP 00/01 14 661 From Rte. 671 to 0.10 Mile S. Rte. 671 Widen Curve to improve Sight Distance ST 00/0' 1999 - 2000 Road Improvement Plan Page -7- 199-I 20:001NMEMAL CIEONS'1 AVCrM P)r N(continned RANK ROUTE FROM TO DESCRIPTION MAGIS F/Y 15 664 0.10 Mile E. Rte. 11 Imp. Drainage; ST 00/0I Remove Box Culverts; Inst. Pipe 16 670 At 0.25 Mile S. Rte. 669 Inst. Box Culvert to ST 00/01 Improve Drainage 17 836 From Rte. 11 to 0.14 Mi. E. Rte. Spot Widen & ST 00/01 11 Improve Drainage 18 1054 Fredericktowne Subdivision 165 lbs. Plant Mix OP 00/01 improvements 19 692 From 0.91 Mi. S. Rte. 522 to 1.07 Replace Pipe; Inst. GA 00/01 Mi. S. Rte. 522 Box Culvert; Realign Road & Intersection. 20 600 From 0.28 Mi. N_ Rte. 689 to 0.35 Spot Widen to Imp. GA 00/01 Mi. N. Rte. 689 Sight Distance 21 752 From 0.63 K. S. Rte 705 to 0.72 Spot Widen GA 00/01 Mi. S. Rte. 705 22 608 From 0.02 Mi. E. Rte 618 to 0.08 Spot Widen to Imp. BC 00/01 Mi. E. Rte. 618 Sight Distance 23 1 600* 1 County Wide Improvement Install Guard Rail n/a 00/01 ABBREVIATIONS: MAGIS - Magisterial District in which incidental construction will occur F/Y - Fiscal Year in which incidental construction will occur. The number 600 reflects a VDOT project number and is not intended to depict Rt. 600. Guardrail installation will be along various secondary roads throughout Frederick County as determined by VDOT. 1999 - 2000 Road Improvement Plan Page -8- NEW ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS INCORPORATED INTO 1999 - 2000 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: No new projects were requested for the 1999 - 2000 update. (Both Route 621 projects identified on the 1998 - 1999 plan have been removed). HARDSURFACE ROAD RAPROVEMENT PROJECTS: No new projects qualified for the 1999 - 2000 update. INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION: Project # 12: Merrimans Lane (621) - rubberized railroad crossing & flashing lights. Project # 13: Double Church Road (641) - improve sight distance. Project # 14: Welltown Pike (661) - improve sight distance. Project # 15: Stephenson Road (664) - improve drainage. Project # 16: Ruebuck Lane (670) - improve drainage. Project # 17: Walters Mill Lane (836) -spot widen and improve drainage. Project # 18: Apply plant mix throughout the Fredericktowne subdivision as needed to improve various roads in which pavement failure is a problem. Project # 19: Chapel Hill Road (692) - improve drainage and sight distance. Project # 20: Brush Creek Road (600) - improve sight distance. Project # 21: Knob Road (752) - spot widen. 1999 - 2000 Road Improvement Plan Project # 22: Wardensville Grade (608) - improve sight distance. Project # 23: Install guardrail - County wide improvement. ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUNDED UNDER 1998 - 1999 SECONDARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION BUDGET • •' 'i•1 1 1"• I "•J Page -9- No major road improvement projects were funded from the 1998 - 1999 Road Improvement Plan. HARD SURFACE ROAD IlVIPROVEMENT PROJECTS: No hardsurface road improvement projects were funded from the 1998 - 1999 Road Improvement Plan. INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION: Intersection of Tasker Road (Route 642) and Aylor Road (Route 647) - install new signalization. Lakeside Subdivision - apply plant mix throughout the as needed to improve various roads in which pavement failure is a problem. Pinetop Road (617) - spot widen Hollow Road (707) - spot widen Fishel Road (612) - spot widen Jordan Springs Road (664) - replace pipe culvert with box culvert Laurel Grove Road (629) - spot widen Heishman Lane (607) - spot widen Back Creek Road (704) - spot widen .� COUNTY of FREDERICK �. Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R Lawrence, Zoning AdministratorC'�_,/ SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Model Update DATE: September 25, 1998 The Fiscal Impact Model (a.k.a. Rezoning Impact Model) has been updated and modified to more accurately project fiscal impacts on capital facilities the County may incur based on a proposed rezoning. This model updating process began in mid -Spring when Mr. Phil Hammer, of RER Economic Consultants, Inc., was selected to conduct the update. The updated Fiscal Impact Model is now presented to the Commission for review and endorsement as appropriate. Mr. Hammer has met with the many County departments that were identified as being impacted by land rezonings. Utilizing information he acquired, the model was expanded to include projected fiscal impacts on such facilities as the library, Sheriffs Office, and administration facilities (Treasurer's office annex). Once the preliminary model modifications were completed, a meeting was held with representatives from the departments of Fire and Rescue, Finance, Parks and Recreation, and Schools. Following discussions, the preliminary model was `tweaked' and a final meeting was held. It was at this most recent meeting, held September 21,1998, that these departments indicated their approval of the model's update. On Monday evening, September 21, 1998, the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Association held their monthly meeting. During this meeting, Gary DuBrueler, Director of Fire and Rescue, briefly discussed the results of the impact model update. It was conveyed to staff that the association was also comfortable with the update model results; in particular, the model addresses fiscal impact concerns as follows (a sampling of modifications); 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Fiscal Impact Model Update Page 2 September 25, 1998 Parks and Recreation. The model calculates impacts utilizing a standard level of service (LOS) per county resident; LOS is calculated based on a spreadsheet utilized by the Parks and Recreation Department. Costs included in these calculations were provided by the Parks and Recreation Department and were also included in the Capital Improvements Program. Schools. The model has been modified to calculate impacts to schools county -wide. This will enable the model to maintain its integrity as school district boundaries are adjusted. This modification will also enable staff to add new schools to the model as deemed necessary. Fire and Rescue. The model has been modified to calculate fiscal impacts on fire and rescue services based on the cost to construct and furnish a new fire/rescue station. This modification eliminates the previous calculations that relied heavily on population and building square footage per emergency district. The new calculation process will also utilize more realistic replacement costs concerning fire/rescue company buildings, vehicles, and apparatus. Attached are a number of scenarios comparing the existing fiscal impact model to the updated fiscal impact model. The updated model output contains greater details concerning the project's fiscal impacts, credits for tax contributions, and the net capital facilities impacts. One note concerning the outputs: commercial and industrial projects do not produce negative net impacts to the County; therefore, monetary contributions may not be expected. If the Commission is comfortable with the model update, a motion would be appropriate. Staff will forward the motion to the Board of Supervisors. Please review the attached information and contact me with any questions. Thank you. ERL/cc Attachment U:\Eric\Conunon\IMPACT. MDL\ 100798.pc.wpd Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model Model Comparism Project Name I�alarns�►r� Rezoning ( 28 acres of RP / 54 single family homes) Fire and Rescue Schools Parks and Recreation Library Sheriffs Office Administrative Building Misc Facilities Calculated Fiscal Impacts on Capital Facilities 1991 Model 11998 Model 3 .... $ 5 ,475 $1,029 $174,799 $31,918 $0 $0 $0 $0 $errseny Road example (hypothetical: 50 acres of RP / 80 single family homes) Fire and Rescue $3,616 Schools $257,979 Parks and Recreation $47,286 Library $0 Sheriffs Office $0 Administrative Building $0 Misc Facilities $0 west. Rwg€ (35 acres of RP / 70 single family homes) Fire and Rescue Schools Parks and Recreation Library Sheriffs Office Administrative Building Misc Facilities Orap f=uneral Home (2 acres of B2 / 15,000 sq. ft. Office Space) Fire and Rescue Schools Parks and Recreation Library Sheriffs Office Administrative Building Misc Facilities f»asw e Commerce Center (hypothetical: 52 acres of 132 / 1,109,918 sq Fire and Rescue Schools Parks and Recreation Library Sheriffs Office Administrative Building Misc Facilities 0004" $1,332 $226,591 $41,980 $0 $0 $0 $0 �72G $ 726 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ft. Retail) $300,743 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,385 $325,530 $61,153 $11,435 $6,681 $11,600 $ 8,692 $70,721 $482,266 $90,597 $16,940 $9,898 $17,186 $12,877 $35,499 $421,983 $79,272 $14,823 $8,661 $15,038 $11,268 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 --------------------------------- OUTPUT MODULE Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact CapitalCS174,799 Costs C C�dit CostsF Department $169 $1,071Rescue Department $142 Elementary Schools $72,585 Middle Schools $22,640 $24,828 High Schools $104,401 Parks and Recreation $33.394 $1.476 $31L$2 918 TOTAL $233,331 $0 $27,375 956---------------------- - FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not D,028-76 Covered by County Contributions NOTES: Robinson rezoning ---- DU> N�QaFt (Merriman's Chase) 28 acres 54 single family E to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. OUTPUT MODULE C. pA-Mb Robinson Rezoning--' �<o�ct"` Net Fiscal Impact (MERRIMANS CHASE) 27 acres Costs of Impact Credit Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For 54 single family Required (entered In Cur. Budget ur. Budget Cap. Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S Future CIP/ Taxes. Other Tax Credits (Unadjusted) Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Cost Balance acilitles Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $27,632 $369 Elementary Schools $228,946 $369 $248 $27,385 $507 Middle Schools High Schools $113,855 $103,177 $180,809 $173,376 $283,986 $190,647 $325,530 $6,028 Parks and Recreation Public Library $75,501 $766 $14,410 $20,607 $21,374 $14,349 $61,153 $1,132 Sheriff's Offices $10,399 $3,622 $4,433 $1,916 $4,433 $5,538 $2,976 $3,718 $11,435 $212 Administration Building Other Miscellaneous Facilities $13,345 $2,598 $16,966 $0 $2,598 $1,744 $6,681 $11,600 $124 $215 $3,023 $9,302 $12,325 $8,274 $8,692 $161 TOTAL $674,430 $0 $113,556 $190,111 $26,956 $330,623 $221,955 $452,475 $8,379 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Includ 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" If Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co P 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.455 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ratio to Co Avg 0.671 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the ------------------------------- 2. model ------------------------ Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second (zero if negative)• Included are theti column RESIDENTIAL NON -REST TOTAL/BALANCE one- me taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid In third column as calculated in fiscal ImlREVENUES* $35,440,929 $17,848,448 $53,289,378 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid In fourth col as calculated in fiscal irrEXPENSES $52,329,256 $960,121 $53,289,378 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, NET BALANCE ($16,888,327) $16,888,327 $0 calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated cINCLUDE PRO RATA FOR FUND BALANCES ETC OF 22.8% facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). REV/COST RATIO 0.677 18.590 1.000 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not Include Include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest If the projects are debt financed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ OTES: Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTPUT MODULE Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net �9 Credit Costs impact Department $220 $1,587 $0 Rescue Department $411 Elementary Schools $106,552 Middle Schools $33,541 $36,782 $257,979 High Schools $154,668 Parks and Recreation $49,472 $2.186 4 86 TOTAL $344,864 $0 $40,556 $304,308 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not $3,616.13 Covered by County Contributions NOTES: Example Development Senseny Road area 50 acres 80 single family to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. OUTPUT MODULE t� Example Development Net Fiscal Impact Senseny Road area -�'�'� Costs of Impact Credit- Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) 50 acres Total Potential Adjustment For 80 single family Required (entered in Cur. Budget ur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Capital Faciltlies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S Taxes. Other Tax Credits (Unadjusted) Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Cost Balance -acilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $71,088 $547 Elementary Schools $339,180 $547 $367 $70,721 $884 Middle Schools High Schools $168,674 $152,855 $267,866 $256,853 $420,720 $282 ,440 $482,266 $6,028 Parks and Recreation Public Library $111,854 $1,135 $30,529 $21,349 $31,665 $21 257 $90 597 $1,132 Sheriffs Offices $6,567 $15,405 $5,366 $2,838 $6,567 $8,204 $4,409 $5,508 $16,940 $212 Administration Building Other Miscellaneous Facilities $19,770 $3,849 $0 $25,135 $3,849 $2,584 $9,898 $17,186 $124 $215 $4,479 $13,780 $18,259 $12,258 $12,877 $161 TOTAL $1,029,306 $0 $168,231 $281,646 $39,935 $489,811 $328,822 $700,484 $8,756 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Includ 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co P 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.455 ----------------------------------------------------- Ratio to Co Avg 0.671 METHODOLOGY 1. ------------------- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model.--------------------------------------- ------------- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input In row total of second column RESIDENTIAL NON (zero if negative)* included are the one-time t f f -REST TOTAL/BALANCE axes/ ees or one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal imIREVENUES* $35,440,929 $17,848,448 $53,289,378 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal IrrEXPENSES $52,329,256 $960,121 $53,289,378 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, NET BALANCE ($16,888,327) $16,888,327 $0 calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated cINCLUDE PRO RATA FOR FUND BALANCES ETC Of 22.8% facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). REV/COST RATIO 0.677 18.590 1.000 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do Include interest if the projects are debt financed. --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------- OT S: Model Run Date '03/31 /98 EAW P.I.N. 76-A-22 & 23 Rezoning: Assumes 265 SFD on 114.51 acres zoned RP. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. -------------------------------------- OUTPUT MODULE Capital F Department $219 Rescue Department $184 Elementary Schools $94,092 Middle Schools $29,348 High Schools $135,335 Parks and Recreation $43.288 TOTAL $302,466 --------------------------------------- FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contributions -------------------------------------------- NOTES: WestRidge---- 3 5 acres 70 single family --------------------- Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Impact Capital Credit r sty $1,389 $32,184 $1,913 $0 $35,486 ---------------- $1,332.10 Net Impact I $0 $226,591 $41..375 $266,980 ------------- i to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. OUTPUT MODULE WestRidge_ 0�' WEb Net Fiscal Impact 35 acres Costs of Impact Credit Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For 70 single family Required (entered in Cur. Budget ur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S Taxes. Other (Unadjusted) Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Cost Balance-acilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department Elementary Schools $35,820 $478 $478 $296,782 $321 $35,499 $507 Middle Schools High Schools $147,589 $133,748 $234,382 $368,130 $224,746 $247,135 $421,983 $6,028 Parks and Recreation Public Library $97,872 $993 $26,713 $27,707 $18,680 $18,600 $79,272 $1,132 Sheriffs Offices Administration Building $5,746 $5,746 $13,480 $4,695 $2,484 $7,178 $17,299 $3,858 $4,819 $14,823 $8,661 $212 $124 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $3,368 $0 $3,368 $21,993 $3,919 $12,058 $15,977 $2,261 $10,726 $15,038 $215 $11,268 $161 TOTAL $874,261 $0 $147,202 $246,440 $34,943 $428,585 $287,719 $586,542 $8,379 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Includ 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co P 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.455 Ratio to Co Avg ----------------------------------------------------------------- 0.671 METHODOLOGY 1. ------------------------- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ------------------------------- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is Input In row total of second column RESIDENTIAL NON -REST TOTAL/BALANCE (zero If negative); Included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. 4. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated In fiscal ImIREVENUES* NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid In fourth col as calculated In fiscal in EXPENSES $35,440,929 $17,848,448 $53,289,378 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, NET BALANCE $52,329,256 ($16,888,327) $960,121 $16,888,327 $53,289,378 calculated for each new facility. $0 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated cINCLUDE PRO RATA FOR facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues FUND BALANCES ETC: Of 22.8% from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). REV/COST RATIO 0.677 18.590 1.000 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do Include interest if ---------------------------------------------------------------- the projects are debt financed. NOTES: --------------------------------------------- Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. -------------------- OUTPUT MODULE Net Fiscal FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contributions ---------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Omps Funeral Home p,%c1€C_ 2 acres 15,000 sq. ft. office space ------------------------- Credit for Taxes to Capital ($12 Net Costs oast $117 $16,718 1 $0 $994 $4 $17,829 $0 $714.62 [ 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. Capital Impact Costs Credit F. Jepartment $16 Rescue Department $113 Elementary Schools $0 Middle Schools $0 High Schools $0 Parks and Recreation $0 TOTAL $130 $243,691 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contributions ---------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Omps Funeral Home p,%c1€C_ 2 acres 15,000 sq. ft. office space ------------------------- Credit for Taxes to Capital ($12 Net Costs oast $117 $16,718 1 $0 $994 $4 $17,829 $0 $714.62 [ to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. OUTPUT MODULE L)PbA T E;® Omps Funeral Home,---' P^eBCC. Net Fiscal Impact 2 acres Costs of Impact Credit- Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For 15,000 sq. ft. Offie Space Required (entered in Cur. Budget ur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S Taxes. Other (Unadjusted) Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Cost Balance =aci ities m�;ict wellin U it Fire and Rescue Department $9,840 $53 Elementary Schools $53 $0 $53 $9„787 ERR Middle Schools $p $0 $0 $0 ---- -- High Schools $0 $0 ERR Parks and Recreation $0 ---- ---- Public Library $0 $o $U $0 $0 ERR Sheriffs Offices Administration Building $0 $477 $0 $477 $0 $477 $0 $0 ERR ERR Other Miscellaneous Facilities $45 $0 $45 $0 $422 $7,327 $7,749 $45 $7,749 $0 ERR $0 ERR TOTAL $9,840 $298,498 $996 $7,327 $0 $306,821 $306,821 $0 ERR INDEX: 1.0” If Cap. Equip Includ . 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co A 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 Ratio to Co Avg -------------------------------------------------------------- 1.477 METHODOLOGY 1. ---- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model.- ---------------- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is Input in row total of second column RESIDENTIAL (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. NON -REST TOTAL/BALANCE 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal imlREVENUES* $35,440,929 $17,848,448 $53,289,378 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal irrEXPENSES $52,329,256 $960121 $53,289,378 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, NET BALANCE ($16,888,327) $16,888,327 $0 calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated cINCLUDE PRO RATA FOR FUND BALANCES ETC: OF facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues 22.8% from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). REV/COST RATIO 0.677 18.590 1.000 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include Include Interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do Include Interest If ----------------------------------------------------------------------- the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. ------------------- OUTPUT MODULE I Department Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation TOTAL ------------------------- FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM ----------------- Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Casts Credit costs $860 $5,428 $93,299 $0 $0 $1,980,814 $0 U $117.744 $94,159 $29,633,060 _____- _ - $2,103,986 New Capital Costs Not Covered by County I1 Contributions ---------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Eastgate Commerce Center -- oto �rscc_ 52 acres 1,109,918 sq. ft. Retail $212,012.15 r to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this GL.Lput Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. Net Impact $88,731 $0 U _$0 OUTPUT MODULE up+ (Nti:d7 Eastgate Commerce Center-' Net Fiscal Impact 52 acres Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For Required (entered in Cur. Budget ur. Budget Cap. Future 1,109,918 sq. ft. Retail CIP/ Tax Credits Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S Taxes. Other (Unadjusted) Revenue- Cost Balance Net Capital Net Cost Per acilities I act Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department Elementary Schools $704,882 $2,428 $2,428 $0 $2,428 $702„454 ERR Middle Schools High Schools so $0 $0 $0 $0 ---- $0 - $0 ERR Parks and Recreation $0 $0 $0 $0 -$0 Public Library $0 $0 ERR Sheriffs Offices Administration Building $0 $22,049 $0 $0 $0 $22,049 $0 $0 $22,049 $0 $0 ERR ERR Other Miscellaneous Facilities $2,084 $0 $0 $2,084 $19,500 $338,852 $358,352 $2,084 $358,352 $0 ERR $0 ERR TOTAL $704,882 $44,140,727 $46,061 $338,852 $0 $44,525,640 $44,525,640 $0 ERR INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Includ 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to CoA 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 Ratio to Co Avg ------------------------------------------------------------ 1.477 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated In the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is Input In row total of second column RESIDENTIAL NON -REST TOTAL/BALANCE (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal Im{REVENUES* $35,440,929 $17,848„448 $53,289,378 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal In EXPENSES $52,329,256 $960,121 $53,289,378 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, NET BALANCE ($16,888,327) $16,888,327 $0 calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated cINCLUDE PRO RATA FOR facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues FUND BALANCES ETC OF 22.8% from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). REV/COST RATIO 0.677 18.590 1.000 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- N OTES: 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R Lawrence, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Request For Zoning Ordinance Amendment Outreach To Asia Nationals (OTAN) DATE: September 23, 1998 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 Staff has received a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to consider allowing non-profit foreign aid organizational offices in the RA Zoning District. This request was made by Otis Goodwin, Executive Director of Outreach To Asia Nationals (OTAN). OTAN established itself in Frederick County in 1991 as a cottage occupation. The Board of Supervisors approved Conditional Use Permit #009-91 in 1991 allowing OTAN to establish an office in a existing garage on OTAN property off Route 522N. Since that time, interest in OTAN has increased; OTAN feels that an expansion of its facilities is necessary to continue providing their services. r , l<- OTAN provides equipment, training, and financial support to National Church workers in Asia in" their pursuit of furthering their belief in Christianity. Funding for this service is derived from churches '^ throughout the United States. OTAN envisions the Frederick County location as the organization's main office, providing administrative services and training. Limited overnight accommodations are also envisioned for up to 10 persons. With any expansion of this facility, OTAN will no longer be considered a cottage occupation, a cottage occupation states that no more than one person, other than the members of the family residing on the property, may be involved with the business; OTAN currently operates in violation of the CUP previously approved by the County in 1991. The type of use that OTAN has requested is not permitted in the RA zoning district. Therefore, OTAN has requested that the ordinance be amended to allow this use in the RA zoning district. Amendment Considerations This use could be classified by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 8399 -Social Services. While presently not permitted by the zoning ordinance in, Frederick County, the use would probably be best suited in the`92"-&_ possibly `the M1 zoning districts The requested residential component is not permitted in either district.y Staff is concerned with the potential impact this use may have in the RA zoning district, and especially 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment Page 2 September 24, 1998 on the adjoining,properties,, presently, if this use was located in the B2 district, adjacent to RA zoned property used for residential uses, a category `B" buffer would be required. A category "C" buffer would be required if the property was zoned M1. Therefore, if the use were considered to be „i i g component should be utilized. appropriate m the RA distract a buffer and screening The interest in constructing overnight accommodations opens the possibility that additional persons may be living on the property. Staff,feels„that prayisions for accommodations would not be -2 _appropriate in, the RA district. Staff is concerned that the accommodation component would significantly increase a proposal's intensity, far beyond the typical uses found in the RA district: agricultural and single family uses. Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) Recommendation The DRRS discussed this request at their July and August monthly meetings. Discussions concentrated on the allowance of `office' uses, whether non-profit or --for profit, outside of the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The DRRS firmly believed that such a use would not be in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Po icy Plan, of which the UDA and SWSA are elements. `` r As a result of these meetings, the DRRS does not endorse the request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow office uses, similar to that proposed by OTAN, within the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Staff is available to address your concerns. Thank you. ERL/cc U: TriclCommonlDRRS10TANV 00798.po.wpd