The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC 04-16-97 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION�'� The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia APRIL 16, 1997 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Minutes of February 19 and March 5, 1997 ............................... A 2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................. B 3) Committee Reports ................................................. C 4) Citizen Comments .................................................. D DISCUSSION ITEMS 5) Presentation by Frederick County Sanitation Authority of the Long-range Water Supply and Transmission Plan (Mr. Wendall Jones) ................................................. E k. 6) Discussion Regarding a Proposed Rating System for Secondary Road Improvementf,,) / Projects � J' (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... F M_ 7) Discussion Regarding Proposed Corridor Design Standards (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... G 8) a �.. 9 nu portd....�.................................... H 9) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on February 19, 1997. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee 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. ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; and Terry Stone, Gainesboro District. STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Andrew Evans, Zoning Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF JANUARY 15 1997 Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Light, the minutes of January 15, 1997 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS Economic Development Commission (EDO Mr. Romine said that it was reported at the January meeting that our area received 19 location inquiries. He said that a project has begun to establish a technical zone and a foreign trade zone somewhere in the vicinity of the airport. Sanitation Authority (SA) Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the repairs in Fredericktowne are about 1/4 -1/3 finished. She said this work includes repairs to laterals and manholes; and, in addition, they are finding that sump pumps are being emptied into the sanitary sewer --for which there is a fine. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Parkins Plant will be adequate for the next five years; the Opequon Plant, if the addition is completed, will be adequate for the next five years; and the Diehl Water Treatment Plant will be adequate for the next 5-10 years. She said that the SA anticipates water customers to increase at the rate of 400 per year. She said that the SA now has 7,000 water customers and by the year 2002, they expect 9,400. She said that sewer will be growing at almost the same rate. Mrs. Copenhaver said that Ned Cleland once again reviewed the agreement between the City and the County on the addition to the Opequon plant. She added that the agreement includes formulas for the payment of additional needed capacities. Winchester City Planning Commission - 02/18/97 Mtg. Mr. Ours reported that the Winchester City Planning Commission held a public hearing for the new HR1 Zoning Plan and the new zoning was adopted unanimously. Mr. Ours said that basically, this is a plan to rezone land from high-density (HR, MR, B1) zones to the new HR with the intent being to preserve the single family character of many of the older high-density areas of the City. He said that the zoning covered six areas of the City, included about 1,082 parcels and about 1,226 dwelling units. PUBLIC MEETING Subdivision Application #001-97 of the Summit, Section 1-B, by Donald L. Bayliss, to subdivide a 2.9 -acre tract into four lots. This property is located at the corner of Lakeview Drive and South Lakeview Drive and is identified with P.I.N.18-A-28F in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. 3 Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Miller said that Section 1B of the Lake Holiday Estates subdivision was approved in April of 1994 by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. He said that this request is for an addition of four lots that adjoins and is to become a part of Section 1B. He explained that there are no new streets required and water and sewer are available to the lots. He said that the president of the Lake Holiday Utility Company and the State DEQ have certified that sewer and water capacity exist to accommodate these additional lots. Mr. Miller added that none of the reviewing agencies had a problem with the subdivision, however, the Director of Public Works is requiring detailed site plans for Lots 29 and 32. Mr. Morris brought up the subject of the lack of an overall master plan for Lake Holiday which defines open space and recreational areas. Mr. Miller said that the staff pursued the issue of the submittal of a master plan, but without success; and Section 1 B was approved without a master plan. Mr. Miller said that there were issues and tyre will be issues in the future, particularly if there are any larger tracts that would be attempted to be divided into lots. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant was aware of the Public Works Director's requirement for site plans and Mr. Miller replied that he was aware and would be required to comply under the provisions of the State-wide Building Code. Mr. Thomas was concerned that the lots might be sold before the required site plans were approved. A representative was not present for this subdivision application. There were no citizen comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Subdivision Application #001-97 for Section 1-B of the Summit by Mr. Donald L. Bayliss with the stipulation that site plans are submitted for Lots 29 and 32 and that all review agency comments are complied with. Discussion Regarding Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Commercial Telecommunication Facilities No Action Required Mr. Wyatt said that the Planning Commission discussed the issue of commercial telecommunications facilities at their meeting of February 5, 1997. Mr. Wyatt stated that the intent of that meeting was to reach a consensus on the approach that should be taken to draft requirements for these facilities. He said that the direction pursued was to create a system that would require a conditional use permit before towers could be constructed and to do this in a fashion where they would be required in any zoning district without placing the requirement in each district. Mr. Wyatt presented the proposed language to the Commission. He also introducer] two gentlemen from Shentel, a local telecommunications company, Mr. Michael Marr and Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, who would be contributing their expertise in helping to answer technical questions from the 4 Commission. Commissioners asked if the language presented was written with outside consultation from people who are in the telecommunications business. Mr. Wyatt reported that much of the information is reflective of what is being used by jurisdictions across the country; however, the proposed language primarily reflects the direction asked for by the Commission and the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). Mr. Wyatt said that once the language has been established, the staff will send it to the two groups in this area who are constructing towers, CFW and Shentel, for their comments. Commission members were interested in providing incentives for collocation. They asked what the industry's perspective of collocation was. Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager with Shentel, said that in the past, the industry has not favored collocation; however, since he has been with Shentel, his company has not followed that way of thinking. Mr. Greisz said that Shentel specifically builds and over -engineers their towers to hold additional providers and encourage collocation. Commission members asked how many of Shentel's towers were collocated. Commission members asked if the average company could make it cost prohibitive for another company to collocate? Mr. Greisz explained that constructing a single tower could be a 1/4 million dollar investment and each site would have to be considered individually. Mr. Wyatt said that under the proposed language, the applicant would have to provide information concerning their attempts to collocate on existing facilities. The issue of an "abandoned in place" structure was next discussed and whether language should be included to prevent its occurrence. Mr. Greisz said that their commitment to the landowner within the lease agreement is that they will remove the tower. He said that if the tower is tall enough to be FAA regulated, then they are required by that agency to keep the tower operating or remove it. Members of the Commission asked if a property owner could get out of a lease agreement after the tower was in place. Mr. Greisz responded that in most cases, the lease is negotiated for an extended term. The Commission next discussed with the Shentel representatives the technologies of the PCS and cellular sites. They discussed lighting on the tops of the towers. Commission members also discussed the pros and cons of lattice towers and monopole towers --ie: what kind does Shentel usually construct, what is their price differential. The representatives from Shentel said that the monopole tower was more expensive and it was also more limited and not as flexible with regard to collocation. The Shentel representatives suggested that the conditional use permit should be open to different types of communication systems, for example, microwave, and not limited to just the cellular and PCS. Mr. Greisz said that VDOT had taken an aggressive step into that area and they now offer lease space on facilities in the Washington-Metroplex area for collation for communication systems; however, they are using it for a camera system and weather monitoring. Mr. Marr stated that specific locations become critical and proprietary until a lease agreement has been negotiated with a landowner --he said it could be costly to companies because they have divulged information about specific areas that caused the property to increase in value. He said this may come into play when the company is trying to provide the county with different facts about the location of the property. He explained the potential danger in divulging information before a lease agreement is established. Commissioners felt the wording should be strengthened concerning lighting; that the monopole 5 structure was preferred because it is more aesthetically pleasing; that the county should do everything it can to encourage multiple use. It was stated that proliferation of towers were unsightly and costly for everyone. Mr. Greisz said that he would like to have the opportunity to review the proposed language and give a point -by -point critique before it goes out for decision. The issue of offering incentives to encourage companies to consider aesthetics when constructing towers was next discussed. The Commission was very sensitive to the aesthetic issues because they felt the proliferation of these towers was going to increase dramatically. Mr. Marr suggested that the county should numn= the setback requirements. Mr. Marr explained that as a site acquisition person, when faced with large setbacks, he is limited to placing the tower in a place that may not be the optimum location. Mr. Marr said that the concept of the highest and best use of the property for the owner seems to be negated with these large setback requirements. He said that he has had landowners ask him to put the tower in the corner of their property because they had industrially -zoned land and may want to sell it or build on it. It was pointed out that there were reasons in the past why these setbacks were established; however, the new towers are structurally enhanced and exceed wind -loading requirements. The representatives from Shentel believed that the setbacks were a hindrance in establishing the optimum aesthetic location. The Commissioners decided to discuss the language further at the next DRRS meeting and this would also give the Shentel representatives enough time to review the language proposed. They asked that the staff obtain information on the following items for their next discussion: 1) cost differential between lattice and monopole towers; 2) a determination on the flexibility for expansion and modification of monopole towers; and 3) relating to setbacks, what are the collapse patterns of monopole and lattice towers. INTRODUCTION OF ANDREW EVANS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Mr. Tierney introduced Andrew Evans, the newly -hired Zoning Administrator for Frederick County. Chairman DeHaven welcomed Mr. Evans on behalf of the entire Planning Commission, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR W. WAYNE MILLER RETIRING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, a Resolution of Appreciation was unanimously approved for W. Wayne Miller, retiring Zoning Administrator, as follows: R Resolution of Appreciation Honoring W. Wayne Miller WHEREAS, W. Wayne Miller served as the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator for Frederick County from the date of his appointment by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 13, 1989, until his retirement on February 28, 1997; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Miller carried out the responsibilities of his position in a manner which demonstrated his strong sense of professionalism and sound judgement, as well as his dedication to both the position and to the County of Frederick; and, WHEREAS, during his tenure, he instituted numerous management practices which have resulted in a dramatic increase in the level of efficiency and accuracy in such areas as the administrative oversight of subdivision bonds, the collection of committed monetary proffers, and the incorporation of subdivision streets into the State secondary road system; and, WHEREAS, the members of the Planning Commission wish him many years of peaceful relaxation and good health. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on this 19th day of February 1997, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby officially express its sincere thanks to W. Wayne Miller for his years of outstanding service and dedication. ADJOURNMENT 9:05 p.m. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned by unanimous vote at Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman C� • MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on March 5, 1997. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger. L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and Terry Stone, Gainesboro District. STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Andrew D. Evans, Zoning Administrator, Eric R Lawrence, Planner II; Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INTRODUCTION OF W. WAYNE MILLER GAINESBORO DISTRICT Chairman DeHaven welcomed the newest member of the Planning Commission, W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District representative. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 2/27/97 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS devoted the entire meeting to discussing the proposed new standards for telecommunication towers. A public hearing has been scheduled for March 19, 1997. Transportation Committee - 03/04/97 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that the Transportation Committee recommended approval of the 1997 Primary Road Improvement Plan. He said that the committee also discussed limiting "through traffic" on Tasker Drive, once it's completed at the Eastgate Industrial Park. He said that a large part of the meeting was spent discussing the rating system for roads included on the Road Improvement Plan. He said that a group of citizens requested that the committee re-examine how those roads are prioritized. Economic Development Commission Mr. Romine mentioned that an article appeared in the newspaper about the new plant that will be locating in this area_ PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #001-97 of Derek M. Heishman to operate an auto repair business without body repair. This property is located at 187 Middle Lane in Gore and is identified with PIN 28 -A -71A and 28- A -71B in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Members of the Commission asked about the proposed hours of operation. Mr. Derek M. Heishman, the owner/applicant said that 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, as listed under Condition #5, was satisfactory. There were no public comments. The Commission felt that allowing this use would not have any significant impact on the neighborhood and upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, 3 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #001-97 of Derek M. Heishman to operate an auto repair business without body repair, with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No inoperative vehicles, as defined by the ordinance, shall be allowed on the property at any time. No outside storage of parts or equipment shall be allowed unless it is totally screened from view. 4. No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be allowed to be openly displayed. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Conditional Use Permit #002-97 of Joseph W. Edmiston for a dog kennel (non -boarding). This property is located at 1293 Hollow Road in Gore and is identified with P.I.N. 26-4-6 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Denial Mr. Joseph W. Edmiston, the owner/applicant, said that he has approximately 50 adult dogs of various breeds (plus two litters of puppies). Mr. Edmiston asked that the Planning Commission permit him to have the same number of dogs that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has approved for his location. He explained to the Commission that his future plans are to build an enclosed structure to house the dogs inside overnight. Mr. Edmiston said that he and his wife own both Lot 5 (the kennel location) and Lot 6 (the house location), which totals approximately 12 acres, and the majority of the property is surrounded by woods. The nearest residence is across the road, approximately 1/4 mile from the kennel. Mr. Edmiston said that he will not have any dogs on the property that he does not own, except for occasional stud service. Members of the Commission asked Mr. Edmiston if he was denied a previous request for a conditional use permit for this kennel. Mr. Edmiston replied that his previous request was denied. Commission members asked if he continued to operate the kennel and why. Mr. Edmiston replied that he did continue to operate and he felt there was a big misunderstanding at the board meeting. Mr. Edmiston explained that he was denied the kennel on Round Hill Road; he and his wife accepted that and moved their home to Gore, to where they felt was a suitable place. He said that they moved primarily just to keep their dogs. Commission members asked Mr. Edmiston what his purpose was and Mr. Edmiston replied that they raise dogs to sell and they have hopes of eventually opening a pet store in Frederick County. Members of the Commission asked Mr. Edmiston what the misunderstanding was at the Board meeting. Mr. Edmiston explained that there was a complaint from a previous neighbor at the previous property (Round Hill) and it was introduced with the new application at the Hollow Road location. Mr. Edmiston felt it played a very big factor in the decision that was made. 4 Members of the Commission asked Mr. Edmiston if he had obtained a County business license and if he had sold any dogs. Mr. Edmiston replied that he did not have a business license because a conditional use permit is a prerequisite for that. Mr. Edmiston said that he had sold several dogs. Commission members pointed out that all dogs must be within a fenced enclosure and must be placed inside a building after 8:00 p.m. Mr. Edmiston said that they currently have chain-link kennel runs and very large houses in which the dogs are placed at night. He added that they plan to construct a building in the future if everything is approved. Commission members asked the staff if a complaint had been filed regarding the kennel. Mr. Ruddy said that he received two complaints concerning this operation at the 1293 Hollow Road location, involving noise. When asked what the difference was between his application of a year ago and this one, Mr. Edmiston replied that it was the same. Commission members asked the staff how many dogs Mr. Edmiston would be permitted to have without being required to have a conditional use permit. Mr. Tierney said that the County's ordinance does not address numbers of dogs. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward: Mrs. Betsy Lewis said that she lives through the woods and it's very, very noisy. Mrs. Lewis said that she is at home all day and she hears the dogs barking all day long. She said that this is an illegal kennel and yet, he is advertising in the Valley Trader and the Winchester Star. Mrs. Lewis was concerned that the operation might be a puppy mill. Mr. Charles E. Stuart said that he was representing the owners of Lake Isaac Estates and Westview and he presented a petition signed by some of the property owners. Mr. Stuart said that the covenants state that there is to be no commercial activity in these two developments. Mr. Stuart, who is the sales contractor for Lake Isaac Estates and Westview, said that he lost a sale last week which disturbed him tremendously. He said that the prospective buyers heard the dogs barking and said they could not put up with the noise. Mr. Stuart next read the subdivision's covenants to the Commission. Chairman DeHaven explained that under Frederick County zoning laws, the operation would be permitted if a conditional use permit is granted; however, if the other property owners feel that the operation is a violation of their covenants, they would need to move ahead to enforce those as a civil matter. Mr. Robert Rush, resident at 368 Whitam Drive in Lake Isaac Estates, said that most people who own property here are just beginning to build, which is why the Commission or staff has not received many complaint calls about the operation. Mr. Rush said that he probably lives the furthest away, about '/Z mile, and he can hear the dogs barking at night and during the day. Mr. Rush felt a kennel would affect property values and deter future builders. Mr. Robert Jewell, resident at 794 Parrishville.Road, said that he is about Y2 mile away and noise is his main concern. Mr. Jewell said that the dogs bark all day long. He was also concerned about the affect on property values. Commission members stated that the nature of a conditional use permit is that it is required when a use is not permitted by right and requires the Commission to make a value judgement about how the use will affect the neighborhood. Members of the Commission were concerned that many of the neighbors in the community had expressed their disapproval of the kennel due to noise and the possible affect on their property values. There was also concern among some members of the Commission that Mr. Edmiston continued to operate his kennel after the Board of Supervisors denied his request for a conditional use permit at this location in November of 1995. On this basis, the Commission recommended denial of the conditional use permit. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit #002-97 of Joseph W. Edmiston for a dog kennel (non -boarding) at 1293 Hollow Road in Gore by the following vote: YES (To Deny): DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Romine, Thomas, Morris, Miller ABSTAIN: Wilson Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the Commission voted unanimously to make the petition from the residents of Lake Isaac Estates and Westview a part of the official record. Conditional Use Permit #003-97 of Marietta and Kim Walls to operate a veterinary hospital, trading as Apple Valley Animal Hospital, with boarding to keep animals overnight that do not need medical attention. This property is located 1207 Cedar Creek Grade and is identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -2K in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval The background information noted that the Walls received an approved conditional use permit for a veterinary clinic and hospital in May of 1991, however, that permit did not allow the boarding of animals that did not require hospitalization. The Walls now desire to board animals not requiring hospitalization and this use is permitted with an approved conditional use permit in the RA District. Dr. Marietta Walls, the veterinarian in charge at the Apple Valley Animal Hospital, said that in order to give their clients the best possible service, they would like to keep animals overnight that do not need direct medical attention. Dr. Walls said that occasionally, they have animals that are on medications and if kept in another boarding facility, they may not get their medications on time or properly. She said that they do not plan to add anything new to the facility; this is mainly a convenience for her clients. Members of the Commission had questions on the numbers of dogs that would be kept overnight and if the dogs would be inside or outside. Dr. Wails explained that normally, they would probably have about Eve animals; however, during holidays, it could get up to 20-25 animals. She said that there would also be cats. C She said that the dogs would not be outside except for convenience purposes and they would be taken out one at a time. She said that the outside area is enclosed by fence. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward: Mr. Kenneth F. Marshall said that he owns land in this neighborhood and also has farmed in this area for many years. Mr. Marshall spoke highly of the Walls, however, he was concerned that this was the wrong location for this type of operation. He wondered about the detrimental affects that a dog problem might have on this area. Mr. Benjamin Butler, attorney representing Mr. Joseph Allen, said that Mr. Allen owns an interest in the adjacent tract of land containing approximately 17 acres. Mr. Butler said that Mr. Allen's concern is that this is an expansion of a business enterprise in a residential area. He felt that the proposed use fell within the definition of a "dog kennel" and it was possible that the use could expand to be as large as the veterinarian business. He said that since the ordinance does not address numbers of dogs, there is no control over the number of dogs or the number of nights a dog could be boarded. Mr. Butler said that his client is opposed to the conditional use permit for these reasons. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Butler if Mr. Allen was opposed to the veterinarian business continuing as it is now. Mr. Butler replied that Mr. Allen had no objection to the veterinarian business, however, he does not want the dog kennel. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Butler if Mr. Allen understood that there would be no visible change in what is going on. Mr. Butler said that Mr. Allen's concern is that this is an expansion of the existing business. Mr. Russell Eversole came forward and stated that he owned six very large commercial kennels in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, Mr. Eversole said that this use is a kennel; at Christmas, there were 27 dogs kept in this facility and it was frill. He stated that a kennel is a 2 '/z - 3 million dollar commercial venture; it is not a couple of kennels put in the basement where you operate a business. Mr. Eversole said that he believed the Walls are good veterinarians, however, he had a problem with the way they conduct their boarding business. He said that the dogs do not have access to open air and this is just not overnight; Christmas holiday is a week to ten days and the dogs are kept in a basement of a home during this time. Mr. Eversole stated that if the County allowed this to continue, a serious precedent would be set that anyone could place 10-12 dog cages in the basement of their residential home and operate a kennel. Mr. Robert Roper, representing the Blue Ridge Grace Brethren Church, an adjoining property owner, stated that the Walls have been good neighbors; however, they do have some concerns about the numbers of dogs that would be permitted. Mr. Roper said that if they could be assured that the Walls would take only one dog outside at a time, they would not have an objection. Members of the Commission brought up the fact that when this request initially came before the Commission, one of the conditions was that there was to be no boarding of dogs because of the concern that a kennel could be established. Commissioners did not have a problem with the boarding facility as long as the animal hospital continued to operate and both uses were tied together. They did not want a situation to occur where the animal hospital closed and only the boarding facility remained. It was decided that a third condition be added to ensure that the boarding facility remained as an accessory use to the veterinary hospital. Members of the Commission noted that the Walls' animal hospital has been very successful and is a first class operation, however, they still had concerns about the numbers of dogs and possible expansion of the facility. Commission 7 members said that they would not support any future expansion of the physical facility. 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 Conditional Use Permit #003-97 of Marietta & Kim Walls to operate a veterinary hospital, trading as Apple Valley Animal Hospital, with boarding to keep animals overnight that do not need medical attention with the following conditions: All animals boarded at this location will be housed indoors. 2. Any expansion of these facilities will require a new conditional use permit. The boarding of animals shall be an accessory use to the primary use, which is the veterinary hospital. Conditional Use Permit #004-97 of Sidney A. Reyes for a Cottage Occupation to operate a photography portrait studio. This property is located at 350 Redland Road in Cross Junction and is identified with P.I.N. 18-2-2 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Background information noted that the proposed use is permitted as a cottage occupation with an approved conditional use permit; the applicant has advised that the activity will be conducted in a room attached to his residence, and, the customers will be handled on an appointment basis. Mr. Sidney A. Reyes, the owner and applicant, was available to answer questions. Commission members noted that the Health Department has stated that there should be no disposal of chemicals on the property or in the sewage disposal system. They asked Mr. Reyes how he planned to dispose of the chemicals. Mr. Reyes said that the photographs will be sent to laboratories for processing and no processing of film will be done at the property. There were no public comments. The Commission felt that allowing the use would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #004-97 of Sidney A. Reyes for a Cottage Occupation to operate a photography portrait studio at 350 Redland Road in Cross Junction with the following conditions: Any sign placed on the property must not exceed the allowable cottage occupation sign of four square feet in area. 8 2. All review agency comments must be complied with at all times. 3. Any expansion of facilities to accommodate this use will require a new conditional use permit. Conditional Use Permit #005-97 of Powell's Plumbing to erect an off -premise business sign. This property is located at 120 Waterloo Court and is identified with P.I.N. 65-A-125 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval The background information noted that off -premise business signs are allowed with an approved conditional use permit in this zoning district; the sign will be restricted to a maximum of 100 square feet in size and 35 feet in height; and if approved, the sign must be at least ten feet from any property line or road right-of- way and 50 feet from any other business sign. would not. Mr. John D. Powell, the applicant, was present to answer questions from the Commission. Members of the Commission asked if the sign would be lighted and Mr. Powell replied that it There were no public comments. There were no other areas of concern raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #005-97 of Powell's Plumbing to erect an off -premise business sign at 120 Waterloo Court with the following conditions: 1. If the business being advertised ceases, the sign must be removed. 2. Review agency comments must be complied with. Conditional Use Permit #006-97 of David and Debbie Bragg to operate an antique shop. This property is located at 511 Redbud Road and is identified with P.I.N. 43-A-155 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval The background information indicated that antique shops are a permitted use in the RA Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit; the structure that is proposed to accommodate the use is an old E house in poor repair; and, a site plan is required prior to any construction activity to accommodate the use. Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Bragg, the owners/applicants, were present to answer questions from the Commissioners spoke with the Braggs about the site plan that would be required. They noted that any public use facility requires an engineered site plan which addresses parking, access, and other issues. Members of the Commission asked the Braggs if the two inoperable vehicles on the property had been removed. Mr. Bragg said the vehicles were still there, but he would have them removed. Commission members next spoke with the Braggs about the structure to be used for the antique shop. The Braggs stated that there is a septic system for the mobile home, but not the older home. They said that the Health Department does not require them to have restroom facilities. The Braggs stated that the house does not require much renovation, just some upgrading and electrical work. Mrs. Bragg stated that the Building Inspector looked at the inside of the house and the only two things that he said would be required were emergency lighting and handicapped access. She said that they can not use the upstairs. There were no public comments. Commission members felt that the issues of concern could adequately be addressed. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Miller, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 4006-97 of David and Debbie Bragg to operate an antique shop at 511 Redbud Road with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. A site plan must be approved by the County prior to any construction activity to accommodate the use. Any business sign for the use shall be limited to a maximum of 50 square feet. Master Development Plan #001-97 of Dominion Knolls to develop 20.278 acres of RP (Residential Performance) District land for the purpose of building 76 single-family detached zero lot line homes. This property is located at the southwest corner of Fort Collier Road (Rt. 1322) and Baker Lane (Rt. 1200) and is designated by P.I.N. s 54J-3-1 through 54J-3-181 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt stated that this property was originally approved several years ago for 180 townhouse units through a Master Development Plan (MDP). Subsequent to the MDP approval, a site plan was approved and at that point in time, the owner directed the project engineer to send the lots to record as plats. Mr. Wyatt 10 explained that this is a platted site, however, it is still vacant. He said that the owner has also asked the project engineer to revise the MDP and the intent is to change the housing type from the approved 180 townhouse units to 76 single-family detached zero -lot line homes. Mr. Wyatt explained that a bul3er is required along the entire property line, between taus subdivision and the Briarcliff subdivision, located within the City of Winchester; this development is required to have curb and gutter, as well as sidewalks on both sides of all streets; lighting will be required at all street intersections; and the County Engineer has drainage concerns in the area along the western property line, between the Hampton Chase and Briarcliff subdivisions. Mr. Wyatt next discussed some of the issues raised by the staff. He said that regarding the residential separation buffer, the distance shown is adequate; however, it needs to be clearly understood that the landscaping needs to be for the adjacent subdivision. In other words, the landscaping would need to come first and thea the proposed fencing or if there is an earth berm, the landscaping would have to be either between the single family homes and the berm or within the berm itself. Mr. Wyatt said that the other concern raised by the staff was the buildable lot area. He pointed out that the way the buffer and utility easements are shown, the remaining building depth area is approximately 55 feet. He said that if you consider the required 25 foot front setback and a standard 26 foot standard building width, only four feet remained for the construction of decks. Mr. Wyatt raised this concern because it may create a situation where property owners or builders will have to apply for variances. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin and Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the project engineers for this development, were representing the owner, Mr. Peter P. Weidlein. Mr. Gyurisin said that they have no problems providing the required buffers and the easement for the additional trees along the entrance to Ft. Collier. He had no problems with switching the location of the fence so it conforms with the subdivision in the City that needs to be protected. Mr. Gyurisin stated that the buildable lots issue is typically taken care of in the final design phase when they are laying out the lots specifically for the subdivision plat. Both Mr. Gyurisin and Mr. Maddox said that they understood the staff's and the Commission's concern regarding this issue and they would look at that very closely. The Planning Commission was pleased to see the curb and gutter, the reduced density, and many of the members felt the single family dwellings were more appropriate at this location than the townhouses. They stressed to the design engineers their concern about the potential problem with the buildable area of the lots along Old Dominion Drive. They commented that with the zero -lot line construction, there was virtually no room for expansion. Mr. Light said that he did not prefer the zero -lot line type of housing because it created high density areas of small dwellings. Other members felt there was a need for this type of housing in the County and they preferred them to townhouses. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Master Development Plan #001-97 of Dominion Knolls to develop 20.278 acres of RP (Residential Performance) District land for the purpose of building 76 single-family detached zero -lot line homes provided that all review agency 11 comments are addressed, as well as all comments and concerns of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, by the following majority vote: YES o A rove : DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Wilson, Romine, Morris, Thomas, Miller NO• Light 1997 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt presented the 1997 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County. He explained that this plan is ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors and then it is presented to the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board at the Staunton District Preallocation Hearing, which will be held on March 27. Mr. Wyatt said that the purpose of addressing the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board is to advise them of Frederick County's needs and to program money to get these improvements accomplished. Mr. Wyatt said the priorities remain the same and he reviewed those priorities with the Commission: 1) Route 37 Eastern By-pass (Alternative C); 2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City); 3) Route I 1 (North and South of Winchester); 4)1-81 (East of Winchester); and 5) Commuter Park and Ride Lots. The Commission was in agreement with the priorities as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the 1997 Primary Road Improvement Plan as presented and recommends approval to the Board of Supervisors. Pronosed 1997-1998 Work Program for the Department of Plannine & Development Mr. Tierney presented the Proposed 1997-1998 Work Program for the Department of Planning & Development. He explained that the work program was an annual product which establishes goals and tasks for the coming year. Mr. Tierney reviewed portions of the work program with the Commission. Information on Sanitation Authority's Letter to Board Regardine Sewer & Water and the DeGran e Property Mr. Morris asked for further clarification on the letter from Mr. Wellington Jones, the Engineer/ 12 Director of the Sanitation Authority to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission and its effect on the DeGrange property. Mr. Tiemey said that discussions at the Board meeting indicate that the applicant intends to work with the Sanitation Authority to acquire both sewer and water from the Authority. Mr. Tierney said that the Board made it very clear that they are concerned and they want the Authority to be an active participant in that project. Mr. Tierney said that his interpretation of the letter was one of a concern for other or future sites that may be similarly situated. He added that the DeGrange project is fairly well on track. W. Wayne Miller Appointed to Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) Chairman DeHaven appointed Mr. W. Wayne Miller to the Development Review &c Regulations O ._ ADJOURNMENT 8:55 p.m. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned by unanimous vote at Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed April 4, 1997) Application newly submitted. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Dominion Knolls (MDP #001-9104/09/97 Stonewall 76 SF Detached Zero Lot Line Homes on 20.278 acres (RP) Location: Submitted: SW Corner of Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322) & Baker Lane (Rt. 1200) 01/27/97 PC Review: 03/05/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: SUBDIVISIONS: The Summit; Section 1-B (SUB #001-97) (No MDP) Gainesboro Subd. of 2.9 acres into 41ots (RS) ll Location: Corner of Lakeview Dr. & South Lakeview Drive PC Review: 02/19/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 104/04/97 03/12/97 - approved Admin. Approved: 09/11/96 - Approved Greenwood Road (SUB #007-95) Shawnee Subdivision of 2.837 ac. into five lots (RP) Location: W. Side of Greenwood Rd (Rt. 656) approx. 1,400' north of Senseny Rd. (Rt. 657) intersection Submitted • 07/22/96 PC Review: 08/21/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 09/11/96 - Approved Admin. A royal: 12/27/96 - Plats signed; received recorded plats on 03/07/97 Valley Mill Estates (SUB) Stonewall 1 21 SF Trad. Lots (RP) Location: No. Side of VaHey Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 10/23/95 MDP #001-95 Approved 04/26/95 Pending Admin. Approval: Awaitin bonding, signed plats, & deed of dedication Winc-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 07/08/87 Pending Admin. Approval Awaiting signed plats. RT&T Partners hi (SUB) Back Creek I 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (132) Location: Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.) Submitted: 05/17/95 MDP #003-91 Approved 07/10/91 Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication Briarwood Estates (SUB) Stonewall 20 SF Det. Trad. Lots (RP) Location: Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 01/03/94 MDP #005-93 Approved 12/8/93 Pending Admin. Approval: Being held atapplicant's request. Abrams Point, Phase I (SUB) Shawnee 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 ded., letter of credit, and signed plat Harry Stimpson (SUB) O uon Two B2 Lots Location: Town Run Lane Submitted: 09/23/94 PC Review: 10/ 19/94 - recommended approval BOS Review: 10/26/94 - a roved Pending Admin. Approval: Aw j!ting signed plat. SITE PLANS: Ain e rieari. Ck and at : ,. Shawnee Oft`�ceson 1 4523.acres.{M1j:".,: view Bus. `Cmr:. SP #608&91) Location: No. East corner of Victory Ln. (Rt. 728) & Independence Drive 11 Submitted: 1103/14/97 1� Rite-Aid (SP #006-97) Gainesboro Mfg. & Distribution Facility on 30.00 acre site (Ml) Location: Welltown Pike (Rt. 661) Submitted: 02/18/97 Approved: 03/18/97 Agape Christian Fellowship Church Sanctuary (SP #005-97) Shawnee Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be 1 developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA) Location: East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/I-81 Interch . Submitted: 02/12/97 Approved: Pending Rose Memorial Foundation (SP #00497) Stonewall Renovation of existing residence for an 1 adult care facility; 3.292 ac. site (RP) Location: 549 Valley Mill Road Submitted: 02/11/97 Approved: Pending Waffle House Restaurant (SP #003-97) Shawnee 1,659 sq.ft. restaurant on 0.37 ac. site 1 (132) Location: 980 Millwood Pike (Intersection of Rt. 522 & 50) Submitted: 01/21/97 Approved: 04/03/97 Valley Proteins, Inc. (SP #002-97) Gainesboro 16,000 sq. ft. office bldg. on a 165 ac. site (M2) Location: 104/03/97 Intersection of Routes 608 and 679 Submitted: 01/15/97 Approved: The Home Plate, Inc. (SP #001-97) Offices on 2.5487 acres (B2) 50,000 sq. ft. recreational facility on 1.1478 ac. site (B2) Location: arrior Rd. & Ivo Dr. in Stephens City EPending Submitted: Approved: Carriebrooke (SP #057-96) Offices on 2.5487 acres (B2) Location: south of I-81/37/642 interchane ffside Submitted: Submitted: A roved: Shenandoah Bldg. Supply (SP #056-96) Gainesboro Warehouse on 5 acres (Ml) Location: 195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park) Submitted: 12/ 16/96 Approved: Pending VirginiaApple Storage (SP #050-96) Shawnee Warehousing on 10.2059 acres (Ml) Location: Southeast comer of Victory Lane (Rt. 728) & Independence Drive at Westview Business Center Submitted: 11/06/96 Approved: 04/03/97 Toan & Assoc. (SP #046-96) Gainesboro Kraft warehouse addition; 4.6 ac. of 13.8 ac. tract (Ml) Location: 360 McGhee Road Submitted: 10/18/96 Approved: March 20, 1997 Winchester 84 Lumber (SP #045-96) Stonewall Storage Shed; 1.19 ac. of a 4.98 ac. tract disturbed (B2) Location: Rt. 839 Submitted: 10/14/96 Approved: Pending Miller Milling East Co. (SP #043-96) Stonewall Bldg. Addition (mill) on 0.91 ac. of a 1 82.136 ac. parcel (Ml) Location: 302 Park Center Drive; Fort Collier Industrial Park Submitted: 09/23/96 Approved: Pending Frederick Veterinary Hospital (SP #037-96) Opequon Veterinary Hospital on .50 ac. of a 2.05 ac. site (RP) Location: East side of A for Rd (Rt. 642); so. of Westmoreland Dr Submitted: 08/21/96 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 Approved: Pending Flying J Travel Plaza (SP #026- 96) Stonewall Travel Plaza on 15 acres (B3) Location: S. W. comer of the intersection of I-81 & Rt. 669 Submitted: 05/23/96 Approved: Pending Cedar Creek Center (SP #025-96) Museum on 0.485 ac. of a 3.210 acre Iparcel (Bl) Location: Fkeek Rt. 11),Middletown Submitted• Submitted: A roved: 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: Pendin Dr. Raymond Fish (SP #023-96) Stonewall Retail Space on 1,600 sq. ft. of a 16 acre parcel (132) Location: S.E. Corner of I-81/Ho well Rd. Intersection Submitted: 05/09/96 Approved: 03/27/97 American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) all E Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 acre site (B2) Location: e ville Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Pending D.K. Erectors & Maintenance, Inc. (SP #051-95) Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on a 10 - 1 acre site (M2) Location: 4530 Northwestern Pike Submitted: 12/28/95 Approved: Pendin Wheatlands Wastewater Facility (SP #047-89) Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (R5) Location: So. West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: Being held atapplicant's request Flex Tech (SP #057-90) Stonewall M1 Use on 11 Ac. (Ml) Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Being held atapplicant's request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS John D. Powell (Powell's Plumbing) (CUP #005-97) Shawnee Off -Premise Business Sign (RA) Location: 120 Waterloo Court (off Rt. 50 East) Submitted: 02/07/97 PC Review: 03/05/97 -recommended approval BOS Review: 04/09/97 David & Debbie Bragg (CUP #006-97) Stonewall Antique Shop (RA) Location: 511 Redbud Run (Rt. 66 1) Submitted: 02/07/97 PC Review: 03/05/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 04/09/97 Sidney A. Reyes (CUP #004-97)r5Red ro Photo h Portrait Studio (RA) Location: nd Road, Cross Junction Submitted: BOS Review: PC Review: - recommended approval BOS Review: Marietta & Kim Walls (CUP #003-97) Back Creek Animal Boarding (RA) Location: Submitted: 1207 Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622) 01/29/97 PC Review: 03/05/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 04/09/97 h W. Edmiston #002-97) Back Creek Dog Kennel (non -boarding) (RA) ion: F 1293 Hollow Rd. (Rt. 707), Lake Isaac Est., Sec. IV, L.ot 6; itted• 01/28/97 eview: 03/05/97 - recommended denial Review• 04/09/97. rek M. Fleishman UP #001-97) Back Creek Automobile repair w/o body repair (RA) cation: fLO 187 Middle Lane, Gore bmitted: 01/21/97 Review: 03/05/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 04/09/97 VARIANCES: Location: 11 201 Stonecrest Court 11 Submitted: 11 03/21/97 11 11 BZA Review: 11 04/15/97 11 LouAnn Judy Thompson (VAR #004-97) Opequon 35' front yd for garage construction (RA) Location: 160 Headley Road Submitted: 02/24/97 BZA Review: 03/18/97 - approved Carroll Construction Co. (VAR #003-97) Gainesboro 23.1' side yd (no.) & 23.4' side yd (so.) 1 for additions to existing struct. (RA) Location: 1252 Apple Pie Ridge Rd.; 5 mi. no. of intersection w/ Rt. 522. Submitted: 02/21/97 BZA Review: 03/18/97 - Approved 21.1' sd. yd. (no.) & 22.4' sd. yd. (so.) CFG Properties (Flying J) (VAR /002-97) Stonewall 34' sign height variance; & a 709.63' 1 sign size variance (B3 & IA) Location: 1530 Rest Church Rd.; SoMest quadrant of I-81 & Rt. 669 Submitted:02/20/97 BZA Review: 0311 3/ 18/97 - denied 10 , Long Range Water Supply and Transmission Plan Wellington H. Jones P.E. Engineer -Director WATER SUPPLY PLAN Where are sources? How much is available? �.> � i;�eriek County Sanitation Authority l�u�esePla�_ Fr dellick Count layin a Presentation Outline SUPPLY TRANSMISSION `} p� Ar�ceio�n J7d..Jjl `u Cleur Drook / u Water Stephens City 3-4 MGD ? �)� = Source (� - �±. mans 3 - 4 MGD hmet h Gnurt - r James H. Diehl Water Treatment Plant Current Rated Capacity - 3.2 MGD Current Constructed Capacity - 4.0 MGD Designed Future Capacity - 6.0 MGD Tower Park A -aWll 1-3 MGD ZA StephensCi'y Gl4 P- Gty Cedar Creek 10 MGD . y kit .1 Brown R t N COUP17 Y ''"JGHES7rR ro Water Source 15 -19 MGD James H. Diehl Water Treatment Plant C.Imur D'ook BI, onsville� is 41, a. D 0 Water Stephens City 3-4 GD Source 5 - 9 MGD W W Al`t7 R t N Couu. Y WATER DEMAND Do water sources provide adequate supply to meet projected demands? f" 'CmES7ER Bartonsville 1-2 MGD Water Stephens City Source 3-4 MGD 4-6MGD . 17, A Rot N GOU"--Y James H. Diehl Water Treatment Plant Current Rated Capacity - 3.2 MGD Current Constructed Capacity - 4.0 MGD Designed Future Capacity - 6.0 MGD Tower Park A -aWll 1-3 MGD ZA StephensCi'y Gl4 P- Gty Cedar Creek 10 MGD . y kit .1 Brown R t N COUP17 Y ''"JGHES7rR ro Water Source 15 -19 MGD James H. Diehl Water Treatment Plant C.Imur D'ook BI, onsville� is 41, a. D 0 Water Stephens City 3-4 GD Source 5 - 9 MGD W W Al`t7 R t N Couu. Y WATER DEMAND Do water sources provide adequate supply to meet projected demands? 12 4 WATER SUPPLY PLAN 35 0 "S Year .MMOMMOM, Demand WATER SUPPLY PLAN as w va 10 15 20 25 b 35 b 45 Year MMMMMMMMI Demand WATER SUPPLY PLAN YS M 95 10 13 20 21 M JS Q 45 Year mmmolowmal Demand WATER SUPPLY PLAN Bartonsville Wellfield Stephens City Quarries BS W eS 10 15 20 25 30 35 d0 45 Year Demand WATER SUPPLY PLAN 20 40 12 Tower Park ant PlDemand 14 ♦ Tower Park Well field Plant Bartonsville Wellfield o Stephens City Quarries "0 '0: '0 35 0 "S Year .MMOMMOM, Demand WATER SUPPLY PLAN as w va 10 15 20 25 b 35 b 45 Year MMMMMMMMI Demand WATER SUPPLY PLAN YS M 95 10 13 20 21 M JS Q 45 Year mmmolowmal Demand WATER SUPPLY PLAN Bartonsville Wellfield Stephens City Quarries BS W eS 10 15 20 25 30 35 d0 45 Year Demand WATER SUPPLY PLAN 20 40 12 Tower Park ant PlDemand 14 ♦ Tower Park Well field Plant Bartonsville Wellfield o Stephens City Quarries I'l 20 2� Year WATER SUPPLY PLAN Tower Park Cedar Plant James H. Diehl Creek Plant Tower Park Wellfield Bartonsville Wellfield Stephens City Quarries 1. xo x3 ]e Je b .s Year MMMMMMMMI Demand WATER TRANSMISSION PLAN How does the water get from the source to the customer? WATER SUPPLY PLAN ,e �1' is '• W:� Cedar Creek "Gie,,, Ir ,x _ Plant O Tower Park i Bartonsville - Y' 1-2 MGD o Stephens City f - // �\•M, �+ ? 3 -4 3-4 MGD r e SO - Tower Park Wellfield Plant Xansrras- <f� i lNalns 0 Stephens City Quarries es m ,s xo xs eo .s us ,o w ss Year umraraomrami Demand ,ra tR n tout[ -Y WATER SUPPLY PLAN ,e Cedar Creek ,x _ Plant O Tower Park i _ Plant Cedar Creek e James H. Diehl Tower Park Wellfield Plant Burtonsville Wellfield 0 Stephens City Quarries es m ,s xo xs eo .s us ,o w ss Year umraraomrami Demand SUMMARY Long Range Water Supply and Transmission Plan ► Adequate Supply ► Flexibility ► Feasible ►Complies with Comprehensive Plan ►Redundancy & Reliability 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: Secondary Road Improvement Plan Rating System DATE: April 3, 1997 The Transportation Committee considered a proposal from staff to establish a new rating system for ranking secondary road improvements. This proposal will provide a mechanism to rate and document hard surface improvement requests and major improvement requests. The rating system establishes specific categories for each improvement, assigns a weight for each category, and utilizes a multiplier based on the various criteria for each category. Requested secondary road improvements would be rated by members of the Transportation Committee, representatives of VDOT, and the county planning staff. Major road improvement projects and hard surface improvement projects receiving the highest rating would be placed on a revised Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan that paralleled the VDOT Six Year Fiscal Plan. This would limit the number of projects that would appear on the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan based on funding availability. The remainder of the projects would be placed on an unprioritized list in order of rating. This unprioritized list would then be revisited in the future as funded projects were completed. Projects on the unprioritized list would then be rated again and the projects receiving the highest rating would be moved accordingly. The Transportation Committee felt that the overall concept of this proposal was reasonable and asked that staff consider the following comments that were made during this discussion : 1) The weight assigned for the category of School Bus Travel should be increased from 2 to a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 10. 2) The description for the category of Average Daily Traffic Count should ensure that the traffic count reflects current counts. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PC Memo Page -2- April 3, 1997 3) The category of Time On Road Plan should only be utilized if documentation can be provided for the road requests that are at least 10 years old. 4) The category of Land Use Issues should be expanded to provide points for master planned properties based on number of residential lots approved and acreage of commercial and industrial land approved. 5) The category of Conformance With Comprehensive Plan should be assigned a weight of 5 to reward roads that do conform. Roads that do not conform should be penalized 5 points. 6) The proposed rating system should not create disparity for projects within magisterial districts. Funding for road improvements should be provided equitably to ensure that all magisterial districts are considered. 7) The proposed rating system should not significantly impact the proposed curb and gutter and drainage improvement projects proposed within the towns of Stephens City and Middletown. Staff will present the proposed new rating system for ranking secondary road improvement projects to the Planning Commission for information and discussion. Staff is interested in input from the Planning Commission regarding the proposal in general, as well as the comments made during the Transportation Committee. Staff will forward the information received during this discussion to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration. FREDERICK COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA Description We�gh� 1 Average Daily Traffic Determine the current 3 Count daily traffic count information provided by VDOT. Qatpted Strums. "' Account forth ;}lySil adC� fbr residences u d �3iiSII15S:S l'1LS£25; I_ on car served., by a VOW, 3 Physical Road Review the current road 4 Conditions/Safety conditions pertaining to surface width, shoulder width, horizontal and vertical curvature, drainage, and accident data. School Bus Tr ve Determine if school bus : 5 Mutes exist or are planned for the road segment. 5 Time On Road Plan Account for the number of 3 years that the road segment has been on the plan. HARD SURFACE PROJECT RATING SYSTEM .,ti► ,. Category Criteria Weight Total Points a � C 1 5 ;•. n x q:'.jam �i �x 151; 2� / x ()'. 2) Occupied (1) 1-10 3 x (1) Structures (2) 11-25 3 x (2) (3) 26-50 3 x (3) (4) 51+ 3 x (4) 3) Physical Road Conditions/Safety .a -)'Surface Width (4) 19 -12' 4 x (4) 3 12.1.° - 14' 4X(3.) - 314.1` 14.1p µ.1t;' 4x(2).. (1) 16'+ ,. 4(1 b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 x (4) (3) 1' 4 x (3) (2) 2' 4 x (2) (1) 3'+ 4 x (1) 0) Horizontal fbr each q x ( ) Curyature oc ancw - 2 - GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES: - 3 - FREDERICK COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA - 4 - 'T ...... .... Weight I Average Daily Traffic Determine the current daily 3 Count traffic count information provided by VDOT. .. ........ 10- W1. a . U, 'SC D eterMilne 0 planned cone k properlje ll Pr r velopM4 -.-served by a read segme-m". 3 Physical Road Review the current road 4 Conditions/Safety conditions pertaining to surface width, shoulder width, horizontal and vertical curvature, drainage, and accident data. 4 School Bus Trel if school bus routes exist or are pl=ned.ffir to. the road.segment. 5 Functional Determine if the road 2 Classification segment is classified as a major collector, a minor collector, or a local road. 6; iConformance With 1:)etermine if the road 5 Comprehensive Plani,,' ;:Segment has been idendfi led 0n Easiern Road Plam 7 Time On Road Plan Account for the number of 3 years that the road segment has been on the plan. - 4 - MAJOR ROAD PROJECT RATING SYSTEM - 5 - .ti Category Criteria Weight Total Points //,�r H//S rY TTVA j 72. he / ri) t ti () Z; 2) Land Use Issues (1) for each parcel 3 x (1) (Undeveloped zoned residential Parcels) (1) for each parcel 3 x (1) zoned commercial (1) for each parcel 3 x (1) zoned industrial (1) for each 50 3 x (?) residential lots within an approved master plan (1) for each 20 acres 3 x (?) of commercial zoned land within an approved master plan (1) for each 20 acres 3 x (?) of industrial zoned land within an approved master plan - 5 - - 6 - Rook 3) Physical Road Conditions/Safety , 1234� k .. 'M!MM4IFMNM ,XN1,4 ,w 16 j !� b) Shoulder Width (4) 0' 4 x (4) (3) l' 4 x (3) (2) 2' 4 x (2) (1) 3'+ 4 x (1) y dfizontal M for each �rva ure occurance d) Vertical (1) for each 4 x (?) Curvature occurance rainage . docl 4 x (Z (2' fair:.... 4 x (2)) (3 poor4 x (3 f) Accident Data (1) 1 - 5 per year 4 x (1) (2) 5 -10 per year 4 x (2) (3) 11 + per year 4 x (3) 4) cbool Bus (1) Yes, S xO Z Travel (0) No 5 x (p) 5) Functional (3) Major Collector 2 x (3) Classification (2) Minor Collector 2 x (2) (1) Local Road 2 x (1) - 6 - Road N*e RL1�i%' l mm r TOM- TO WitlK s 444 .n 7) Time on Road (1) 0 - 2 yrs. 3 x (1) Plan (2) 3 - 5 yrs. 3 x (2) (3) 6 - 8 yrs. 3 x (3) (4) 9 - 10 yrs. 3 x (4) (5) 11+ yrs. 3 x (5) GRAND TOTAL FOR ALL CATEGORIES: - 7 - COUNTY of FRFnFR1( K Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director `011 RE: Corridor Appearance and Development Design Standards DATE: April 3, 1997 During the February 1, 1997 Planning Commission Retreat, staff presented information which demonstrated the ability to enhance corridor appearance through the embellishment of existing design criteria. The members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission agreed with the approach that has been developed by the DRRS, and directed staff to work with the committee to "fine-tune" this language in an expeditious manner for the purpose of amending the Zoning Ordinance. As you know, the DRRS has recommended that the following design issues be revised to enhance corridor appearance: • Entrance spacing requirements for arterial and collector road systems. • Boulevard entrance design for arterial road systems. • Freestanding and building mounted signage. • Parking lot locations and setbacks. • Landscaping enhancements including maintenance requirements. • Building components and underground utilities. The DRRS discussed proposed standards for the design of parking lots and for the provision of underground utilities during their March meeting. Staff would like to discuss these issues, as well as proposed design standards for freestanding and building mounted signs with the Planning Commission. Included with this memorandum is language pertaining to signs. Staff will present additional information regarding parking lot design and underground utilities during the meeting. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 SIGNAGE • Freestanding business signs shall not exceed 25 feet in height or 75 square feet in area. No more than one freestanding business sign shall be permitted for each business on a lot. Business lots containing multiple road frontage shall be permitted to have one freestanding business sign along each road frontage. • Shopping centers and businesses housing a minimum of three tenants shall be permitted to have one freestanding business sign that does not exceed 25 feet in height or 100 square feet in area. Business lots containing multiple road frontage shall be permitted to have one freestanding business sign along each road frontage. • Monument signs are encouraged along arterial and collector road systems. Businesses are permitted to have one monument sign that does not exceed 100 square feet in area. Shopping centers are permitted to have one monument sign that does not exceed 150 square feet in area. Business lots containing multiple road frontage shall be permitted to have one freestanding business sign along each road frontage. Monument signs shall be constructed of building materials designed to complement the primary structure. • All freestanding business signs shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from any property line. Freestanding business signs shall not project beyond the property line and shall have a minimum clearance of 8 feet above a sidewalk or pedestrian walkway and fifteen feet above all areas in which vehicular traffic utilizes. • The size of a building mounted sign shall not exceed 20% of the wall area to which it is attached, and may not exceed a total of 200 square feet. Building mounted signs shall be permitted on any wall that faces a road frontage. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I Subject: 1996 Frederick County Annual Report Date: April 4, 1997 On an annual basis, the planning staff compiles a report that is intended to provide the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and citizens with information to evaluate the previous year's planning activities and to aid in comprehensive planning and development for the upcoming year. The Frederick County Annual Report for 1996 will be presented to you at the April 16 Planning Commission meeting. Staff would ask that after the presentation, you review the annual report and offer your comments. After receiving your input, staff will make any necessary revisions and then proceed with a final version. MTR/cc 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000