Loading...
PC 11-19-97 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia NOVEMBER 19, 1997 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Minutes of October 15, 1997 .............................................. A 2) Bi -Monthly Report ...................................................... B 3) Committee Reports ...................................................... C 4) Citizen Comments...................................................... D PUBLIC HEARING 5) Update of the 1998-1999 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan (Mr. Wyatt)............................................................ E PUBLIC MEETING 6) Master Development Plan #007-97 for Westminster Canterbury, by Greenway Engineering to develop a 48 -unit assisted living facility and 18 cottages in two phases. This property consists of 46.3 5 acres, located on Westminster -Canterbury Drive, off of Route 522 North, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 53-A-63 A, 53- A-6313, 53 -A -52B, and 53-4-3-J in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (Mr. Ruddy) ............. 1 ......................................... F DISCUSSION ITEMS 7) 1998 Comprehensive Policy Plan Update Discussion (Mr. Wyatt)............................................................ G 8) Discussion Regarding Corridor Design Standards Status (Mr. Wyatt) ............................................................ 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 October 15, 1997. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 10/13/97 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPS reviewed a request from Jasbo, Inc. to extend sewer service to the Whitfield Subdivision and a request to include the Preston Conner, Sr. tract into the UDA. Work has also begun on the update to the Comprehensive Plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 1, 1997 Page 100 -2 - Transportation Committee Mr. Wyatt reported that the Transportation Committee will be holding a public hearing on the update of the Secondary Road Plan on November 3 and that plan will come before the Planning Commission on the 19th of November. PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplemental Use Regulations, Section 165-48.3, and Article X, Business and Industrial Districts, Section 165-82B., District Use Regulations, B2 Business General District. The proposed amendment allows Hardware, Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies establishments as a permitted use in the B2 (Business General) District, and establishes performance standards applicable to same. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Eric Lawrence, Planner II, stated that the staff received a request from the R. E. Michael Company, Inc. to consider amending the B2 Section of the ordinance to allow for their type of business, which is heating and air conditioning sales. Mr. Lawrence said that the B2 Zoning District allows for the wholesale distribution of electrical goods and it also allows for the wholesale distribution of plumbing and heating equipment and supplies. He said that no other wholesale trade establishments are currently allowed in the B2 District. Mr. Lawrence said that the DRRS discussed this at their meeting of September 25, 1997 and it was the general feeling of the DRRS that this change, in addition to the amendment, would not be significant nor detrimental to the ordinance. The DRRS further felt the inclusion of the entire SIC 507 Code, "Hardware and Plumbing and Heating Equipment and supplies," is in line with what is already permitted in the B2 Zoning District and would be appropriate with performance standards. There were no public comments. No issues of concerns were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the proposed amendment to allow "hardware, and plumbing and heating equipment and supplies" businesses in the B2 District with performance standards. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 1, 1997 Page 101 -3 - PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #006-97 of Westridge III by Glaize Development, Inc. to develop 19 single- family detached urban residential lots on 9.81 acres, zoned RP (Residential Performance). This property is located adjacent to the Westridge Subdivision (Sections I & II), with access from West View Lane via Middle Road (Rt. 628) in the City of Winchester, and is identified with P.I.N. 63-A-3 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, gave the background information and review agency comments. He said that the issues of concern for the master plan are public service and road design related issues. Mr. Wyatt said that during the rezoning of this property, a concern was expressed about the public services issue (snow removal, refuse/recycling pick-up, emergency services) because a portion of this development is located within the City. He said that during rezoning, a proffer was submitted stating there would be a consumer disclosure statement and the staff feels that a narrative also needs to be incorporated on the master plan to describe this. Mr. Wyatt said that this master plan design conforms with the proffered concept plan submitted during the rezoning, which also provides a 50' access to the Allen tract that will eventually provide a connection to Cedar Creek Grade. Regarding the road design issue, Mr. Wyatt said that the School Bus Transportation Department confirmed that they would enter the subdivision to pick up school children provided the cul-de-sacs were designed to accommodate school bus travel; therefore, staff is recommending that a narrative be placed on the master plan to reflect that comment as well. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the design engineers for this project, stated that almost two years ago, this site was approved for inclusion in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and subsequently, last year, it was rezoned. He said that they have conformed with all of the proffers and the consumer notification will be placed on both the master development plan and the fmal plats and deed of dedications. Mr. Gyurisin said that they will provide sidewalks, street lights, curb and gutter, and the cul-de-sac radius will meet VDOT standards. He added that this section is a continuation of Westridge Subdivision which is already in place. Mr. Miller commented about the 50' right-of-way over to the Allen property and inquired if there was a requirement for a right-of-way over to the church property. Mr. Wyatt replied that there was not; he said that because of the situation and the road lay -out for this subdivision, access to Cedar Creek Grade was desireable should the Allen property develop in the future; however, access to Middle Road is already provided and to require a road to the church property to tie back into Middle Road farther southwest would not be desireable. Planning Commissioners were of the opinion that the proposed master development plan was designed in conformance with the proffered concept plan which was approved as a part of the rezoning, and conformed with the requirements and recommendations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. There were no public comments. Frederick County Pla: ring Commission Minutes of October 1, 1997 Page 102 -4 - Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #006-97 of Westridge III by Glaize Development, Inc. to develop 19 single-family detached urban residential lots provided that all reveiw agency comments, staff report comments, and all comments or concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have been adequately addressed. DISCUSSION REGARDING CORRIDOR DESIGN STANDARDS Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, stated that one of the items on the work program for the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) was to develop new design standards to enhance the appearance of the County's corridors. He said that discussions were held at the Planning Commission level and a public hearing was held at the Commission's August 13, 1997 meeting. Mr. Wyatt said that subsequent to that meeting, the staff received comments from various members of the community, members of the Industrial Parks Association, and a local engineering firm expressing some concerns. Mr. Wyatt said that before forwarding this to the Board, the staff felt it prudent for the Commission to review the concerns and comments and have an opportunity to discuss them. Mr. Wyatt introduced some of the representatives of the concerned groups who were in the audience: representing the Top of Virginia Building Association was Mr. Kit Moulden; representing G. W. Clifford & Associates were Mr. Charles Maddox, Jr. and Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin; representing Eastgate Commerce Center was developer Mr. Allen Hudson; representing the Ft. Collier Industrial Park was Mr. Jim McIlvaine; representing the Industrial Parks Association was Mr. Whit Wagner; representing the Shockey Company was Mr. Fred Ash; and representing Painter -Lewis Engineers was Mr. John Lewis. Mr. Wyatt next reviewed each of the comments expressed within the various sections of the following design standards: off-street parking, entrance spacing requirements, and the utility section. Mr. Monis raised the point that during committee discussions, especially for the industrial park areas, it was suggested that maybe the industrial parks should be exempt from any of the design standards; however, when this subject came up, the committee was not heavily into the issue of flex -tech, which may bring retail traffic into industrial parks. Mr. Morris said that some of the comments may not vet address flex -tech because the committee is still discussing that issue. Mr. Wyatt replied that some of the issues that the Industrial Parks Association (IPA) raised pertained to parking and parking lots. Mr. Miller commented on a concern raised about the ability to install high voltage lines underground in industrial settings. Mr. Wyatt explained that the way the language reads, there is the potential for interpretation that if there is an upgrade to the transformer or to the service line into the building, which could happen if an industrial use upgraded some process where they had the need for more electricity, the power lines that follow the road right-of-way, as well as the lines coming in where the transformer is sitting and the service line to the building, would all need to go underground. Mr. Wyatt said that the primary concern is who will bear the cost of doing that. Members of the Commi z6nn were of the nrninion that thev wnuld hi- willing to entertain compromises on some of the issues; however, they did not want to gut the "intent" of the design standards. They Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 1, 1997 Page 103 %is felt there was room for compromises, particularly in industrial park areas; but they did feel a need to insist on some of the major issues, particularly if the County was ever going to obtain the standards it has been striving for. Mr. Wyatt said that many of the comments submitted warrant consideration and he did not feel any one item compromised the enhancement of the corridors involved. Mr. Wyatt said that he did feel strongly against the comment that the design standards should only apply to arterial and not to major collector roads. Mr. Wyatt explained that unlike the City of Winchester, the County is going to grow and has areas that are designed to grow. He said that roads being planned, such as Tasker Road, Warrior Road, etc., will over time develop into major corridors and will be traveled on by others besides professional drivers and industrial park employees. He said there will be mixed land areas that will have places of residential use, as well as commerical and in some cases, light industrial. Mr. Wyatt said that his greatest concern would be to exempt the major collector roads from meeting the design standards. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Kit Moulden, developer in the City of Winchester and resident of Frederick County, was present on behalf of the Top of Virginia (TOV) Building Association. Mr. Moulden said that discussions have led him to believe that the Commission and the staff had done everything right in trying to present the proposed standards to the development community and he apologized that the TOV Building Association had failed to get a timely response back to the Commission. Mr. Moulden said that he was not in a position at this time to comment on the technicial aspects of the proposal and he asked the Commission to consider tabling it for 30 days so the development community could review it and give a cohesive response. Mr. Allen Hudson, associated with the recently approved Eastgate Commerce Center, stated that he has 70 acres of commercial property for which he is attempting to ascertain a use. He said that he has some very interested parties, but he knows he is in competition with some commercial properties in Warren County and other areas as well. Mr. Hudson said that he, too, was not prepared to present comments on the proposed design standards and he also asked the Commission to consider tabling the issue for 30 days, so that he could study the proposal. He felt there were some issues that needed to be addressed on commercial properties as well as industrial. Mr. Whit Wagner, representing the Industrial Parks Association (IPA), said that the IPA has been working with the staff and many of the concerns raised were theirs. Mr. Wagner said that the IPA applauds the concept of upgrading the built environment and felt the staff had done an exceptionally good job. He said that there were a couple items, however, that they would like to see modified somewhat to give them a compromise between what they can afford and what's best for the health, safety, and welfare of the built environment. On the topic of underground utilities, Mr. Wagner said that he certainly encourages them; but when it comes to high-voltage underground utilities, it becomes onerous and adds significantly to the price of the lots. He said that those concerns have been addressed, but are not yet a part of the written text. He said that the IPA would like to see the actual written text before they would whole-heartedly endorse the program. Mr. Wagner also felt it would be a good idea to table the design standards. Mr. James McIlvaine, representing the Fort Collier Industrial Park, said that they thought the guidelines were for the highway corridor districts and subsequently, didn't realize that any of the regulations would apply to them; however, now they realize this is not the case and that most of the guidelines do apply to the industrial parks. Mr. McIlvaine felt that others may have had the same misunderstanding. Mr. Mcllvaine felt that some time needed to be spent discussing the expense items. Frederick Countv Planning Commission Minutes of October 1, 1997 Page 104 Members of the Commission agreed that more discussion on the design standards were needed, especially in light of the comments received. Commission members believed that the development design community's input was imperative on these issues and thanked those present for their input. They felt that some of the major issues that needed addressed were: 1) the flex -tech issue in the industrial parks, especially as far as parking was concerned; 2) the misunderstanding that the design standards applied only to corridors, while in actuality it involved the industrial parks as well; and 3) the underground utilities issue --the one single thing they felt could be done that would improve corridor appearance more than anything else. Commission members believed that the best forum for discussion would be at the committee level with the representatives of the development/building community. Legal Counsel, Jay Cook, advised that since the Commission had already made a formal recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at a previously advertised public hearing, the proper way to proceed would be to forward the design standards to the Board and have the Board table them at their level. Mr. Tierney felt the staff could work out the logistics; and, in the meantime, a meeting could be scheduled at the committee level to get the discussions started. APPOINTMENT OF MR SCOT MARSH TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Chairman DeHaven appointed Mr. Scot Marsh to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of October 1, 1997 Page 105 BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed November 7, 1997) Application newly submitted. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Westridge III (MDP #006-97) Back Creek 19 S.F. Detached Urban Residential Lots on 9.81 ac. (RP) Location: Adjacent to the Westridge Subd. (Sec. I & II) w/ access from West View Lane via Middle Road (Rt. 628) in the City. Submitted: 09/22/97 PC Review: 10/15/97 BOS Review: 11/12/97 Admin. A roved: pending Eastgate Commerce Center (MDP #005-97) Shawnee Commercial/Industrial uses on 135.99 ac. of 235.75 ac. tract (B2, B3, Ml) Location: East side of Rt. 522 So. at the intersection of relocated Rt. 642. Submitted: 06/06/97 PC Review: 07/02/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 08/13/97 -approved Administrative) Approved: 10/28/97 Woodbrook Village (MDP #00497) Back Creek 82 s.f. cluster & 81 multi-plex. units on 42.50 acres (RP) Location: South side of Opeguon Church Lane at Kemstown Submitted: 05/09/97 PC Review: 09/03/97 - rec. approval upon resolution of transportation issues. BOS Review: 09/24/97 -approved Adminstrativel Approved: j Pending completion of review agency comments. SUBDIVISIONS: Location: East side of Rt. 522, 0.15 mi. south of Lon croft Rd. (Rt. 785) Submitted: 10/30/97 MDP #006-%: Approved by BOS 08/14/96; Admin. Approved on 09/17/96 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Dr. Raymond L. Fish (SUB #012-97) Stonewall Subdivision of one lot (1.4962 ac.) (B2) off a 16.00 ac. parent tract (112 & B3) Location: Hopewell Rd. & new proposed street, Clearbrook Ln; 160' NW of existing Winchester & Western 60' right-of-way Submitted: 10/09/97 MDP #005-95: Approved by BOS on 01/24/96; Admin. Approved on 07/15/96 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pendia Briarwood Estates (SUB #011-97) Stonewall Subdivision of 9.79 acres for 20 S.F. Det. Traditional Lots (RP) Location: East side of Greenwood Rd. (Rt. 656) Submitted: 09/26/97 (Replaces Subdiv. #001-94) MDP #005-93 Approved by BOS on 12/8/93 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending 2 Star Fort, Sect. 11 (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: Pendia Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall Indust. Pk. (SUB #007-97) Gainesboro Subdivision of a 2.6584 ac. lot (M1) Location: McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); a rox. 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: Pendia Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97) Stonewall 75 s.f. zero lot line lots on 20.278 ac. (RP) Location: So.west comer of Baker Ln. (Rt. 1200) & Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322) Submitted: 05/16/97 MDP #001-97 Approved by BOS 04/09/97; Admin. Approved 06/30/97 11 Subd, Admin. Approved: Pending Lenoir City Co. of Virginia (SUB #003-97) Gainesboro 1 MI Lot (2.000 acres) Location: Stonewall Industrial Pk.; McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861), approx. 700' west of the McGhee Rd, and Tyson Dr. intersection. Submitted: 05/15/97 MDP #006-93: Approved by BOS 07/14/93: Admin. Approved 07/28/93 Admin. A roved: Pending Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB) I 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; Admin. Approved 06/08/88 Pending Admin. Approval Awaiting signed plats. RT&T Partnership (SUB) Back Creek I 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 FAbrams 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 dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat Harry Stimpson (SUB) Opeguon 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. Aroval: Awaitin si ed plat. SITE PLANS: Butler Const. Rural Sys. Div, of Butler Mfg. (SP #037-97) Stonewall Yard crane addit. for component mfg. 8.3090 ac. develop. of 33.95 ac. site (Ml) Location: 276 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook Submitted: 10/16/97 ,[_Approved: Pendia Fulton Property (Minor SP #036-97) Opequon 3,500 g.s.f. Office Space Addition (M2) 0.50 ac. developed on 14.626 ac. site Location: 1114 Fairfax Pike, Stephens City Submitted: 10/16/97 Approved: Pendia Trex Outdoor Storage (SP #035-97) Back Creek Outdoor Storage; 173,416 S.F. (M2) Location: 158 Capitol Lane Submitted: 10-01-97 A roved: Pendia Valley Cycle Center (SP #033-97) Shawnee 16,000 s.f, bldg. for retail sales; 2 ac. disturbed on a 2.0579 ac. site (B2) Location: Westview Business Center; Lot A; Approx. 2 miles east of I-81 on Rt. 50 at Independence Drive Submitted: 09/23/97 Approved: Pending Lenoir City Co. of Virginia (SP #032-97) Gainesboro 50,000 sq. ft. Office/Warehouse on 6.5 ac. (M1) Location: Lot 31, Stonewall Indust. Pk; So. East corner of McGhee Rd. & Lenoir Dr. intersection Submitted: 08/21/97 Approved: 11/05/97 Dr. Fairn= Veterinary Office (SP #029-97) Stonewall 4,272 sq ft Veterinary Office on 1.4%2 ac. parcel (132) Location: 1092 Hopewell Road Submitted: 07/25/97 Approved: Pendin Mobil-Wendys Rt. 50W Conven. Center (SP #026-97) Back Creek Gas-Conven. Cntr.; 3,783 sq ft floor area; 1.072 ac. site disturbed (RA) Location: Rt. 50 West Submitted: 07/23/97 A roved: Pending Seo Property (SP #025-97) Shawnee Video Store in existing bldg.; 2.04 ac. (Bl) Location: Front Royal Pike Submitted: 07/23/97 Approved: Pending Ellis Self -Storage (SP #024-97) Stonewall 3 additional self -storage bldgs; 9.211 ac. cel disturbed; (Ml) Location: Intersection of Routes 761 & 664 Submitted: 07/03/97 Approved: Pending Roundball #6 (SP #023-97) Gainesboro 1,750 s.f. office; 80,500 s.f. warehse Phase I; 80,500 s.f. warehse Phase H; 10.0 ac. distrb. of 10.0159 ac. site (Ml) Location: Tyson Drive Submitted: 06/30/97 Approved: Pending 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; !22rox. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/I-81 Interch . Submitted: 02/12/97 Approved: Pending Shenandoah Bldg. Supply (SP #056-96) Gainesboro Warehouse on 5 acres (Ml) Location: 195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park) Submitted: 12/16/96 Approved: Ldin Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube Service (SP #030-96) Opequon Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive - l 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- Stonewall Travel Plaza on 15 acres (B3) Location: 7-71 S.W. corner of the intersection of I-81 & Rt. 669 Submitted: 05/23/96 Approved: Pending AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP #022-96) Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a 1 0.916 acre parcel (RA) Location: 3548 North Frederick Pike Submitted: 05/08/96 Approved: Pending American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on a 10 - acre site (M2) Location: Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 acre site (B2) Location: 1730 Berryville Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Pending D.K. Erectors & Maintenance, Inc. (SP #051-95) Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on a 10 - acre site (M2) Location: 4530 Northwestern Pike Submitted • 12/28/95 Approved: Pending Wheatlands Wastewater Facility (SP #047-89) Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (R5) Location: So. West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: Being held atapplicant's request. Flex Tech (SP #057-90) Stonewall Ml Use on 11 Ac. (Ml) Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Beine held atapplicant's request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Elizabeth Robinson (CUP #017-97) Back CreekCottage Occupation/Crafts, Cooking, Decorating Instruction) (RA) Location: 4468 Middle Rd.; 4 mi. W of Middle Rd. & Valley Ave. intersection Submitted: 10/10/97 PC Review: 11/05/97 - recommended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 12/10/97 Joyce M. Brinklow (CUP #016-97) Back Creek Cottage Occupation - Bargain Retail 1 Store in existing bldg. (RA) Location: 8421 Valley Pike, Middletown Submitted: 09/22/97 PC Review: 11/05/97 - recommended approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 12/10/97 T. P. & Susan Goodman (CUP #010-97) Stonewall Social Center, Outdoor Recreation Center, Catered Functions, Tours, Meetings, Etc. (RA) Location: 534 Redbud Road Submitted: Submitted: 06/09/97 10/21/97 - tabled until 11/18/97 PC Review: 09/03/97 - recommended approval with conditions BOS Review: 10/07/97 - tabled until 11/12/97 BZA VARIANCES: Lloyd & Gail Winters (VAR #015-97) Stonewall 5' side yd variance for addition to existing detached garage Location: 253 Ruebuck Road, Clearbrook Submitted: 09/16/97 BZA Review: 10/21/97 - tabled until 11/18/97 10 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: 1998-1999 Secondary Road Improvement Plan Public Hearing DATE: November 4, 1997 The Frederick County Transportation Committee held a public hearing on November 3, 1997 for the annual update of the referenced plan. As you know, 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 and hard surface road improvement sections, and calls for 11 new incident construction projects. The primary revisions to the major road improvement reflect new advertisement dates for the Middle Road and Greenwood Road projects. The Middle Road project has been pushed back three months, while the Greenwood Road project has been pushed back six months. The hard surface road improvement section has been revised based on the recently adopted rating system policy. A new category for unscheduled projects has been incorporated into the plan which reflects the cumulative point average for each candidate project. The incidental construction improvement section has been modified to incorporate 11 new projects that are based on VDOT, staff, and citizen input. These projects are anticipated to be complete during the 1999-2000 VDOT fiscal year. Three citizens addressed the Transportation Committee during the public hearing. Each citizen represented a road that has an advertisement date for hard surface improvements and asked the committee to approve the proposed plan update as presented by staff. Staff also received eight letters from citizens concerned about Middle Fork Road (Route 695). Each letter requested that Middle Fork Road maintain the number 1 priority for hard surface improvements. 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 Kurth Kent -Street • Winchester. Vir-inia 22601-5000 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. 1998 -1999 MAJOR PROJECT ROAD U"ROVEMENT PLAN RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 1 628 Rt. 631 Rt. 732 2410 2.41 miles BC 03/98 2 656* Rt. 657 Rt. 659 4237 1.01 miles SH/ST 01/99 3 621** Rt. 622 Rt. 1109 1080 1.38 miles BC 07/00 4 647 Rt. 277 Rt. 642 7241 2.08 miles OP 07/02 5 608 Rt. 50W Rt. 616 1527 2.83 miles BC UN/SH 6 659 T Rt. 820 Rt. 7 401 0.2 miles ST UN/SH 7 656 Rt. 655 Rt. 657 3041 1.39 miles SH/ST UN/SH 8 t Towns I curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Stephens City UN/SH 9 Towns curb and jotter improvements for the Town of Middletown UN/SH 10 664 Rt. 761 Rt. 660 1898 1.1 miles ST UN/SH 11 660 Rt. 664 Rt. 7E 1268 2.13 miles ST UN/SH 12 622 1 Citv of w'inchester to Rt. 37 9192 1.03 miles BC UN/SH 13 600 1.07 miles N Rt. 679 to Rt. 684 942 1.93 miles GA UN/SH 14 659 Rt. 656 L Rt. 820 401 1.8 miles ST UN/SH 15 657 City of Winchester to Rt. 656 9197l.6 milts SH UN/SH 16 739 Rt. 673 Rt. 522N 2763 1.66 miles GA UN/SH 17 636 Rt. 277 Rt. 642 874 1.6 miles OP/SH UN/SH 18 644 City of Winchester to Rt. 5225 4835 1.36 miles SH UN/SH 19 661 Rt. LIN Rt. 660 397 3.24 miles ST UN/SH 20 =622Rt. 629 Rt. 37 3211 1 5.86 miles BC UN/SH 1998 - 1999 Road Improvement Plan Page -2- 1998 - 1999 MAJOR PROJECT ROAD EWPROVEMENT PLAN (Continued) RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD -DAT 21 657 Rt. 656 to Clarke County 4779 2.07 miles ST UN/SH 22 641 Rt. 647 Rt. 277 2980 0.68 miles OP UN/SH 23 761 Rt. IIN Rt. 664 2239 1.13 miles ST UN/SH 24 659 Rt. 7 Rt. 656 4524 1.09 miles SH/ST UN/SH 25 636 Rt. 277 to 1.5 miles south 277) 522 1.5 miles OP UN/SH 26 621 Rt. 1109 Rt. 628 1080 0.57 miles BC UN/SH 27 600 1 Rt. 753 Rt. 614 2075 1.8 miles BC UN/SH 28 655 Rt. 50E 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. UN 7229 1.21 miles ST/GA UN/SH 31 628 Rt. 621 to City of Winchester 2722 1.25 miles BC UN/SH 32 627 Interstate 81 Rt. I IS 5187 0.49 miles OP UN/SH 33 704 Rt. 751 Rt. 683 282 4.11 miles BC UN/SH 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. 621** - Improvements to Route 621 will include drainage improvements south of Route 622 and the realignment of the "S" turn on Route 621. 1998 - 1999 Road Improvement Plan Page -3- HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non- hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvements are considered primarily by the average daily traffic count for these secondary roads. 1998 - 1999 NEW HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FRANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGI5 AD.DAT 1 695 1.09 to 2.3 miles north Rt. 522 83 1.21 miles GA 07/98 2 692 Rt. 600 to 1.2 mi. NE Rt. 600 137 1.2 miles GA 07/98 3 625 Rt. 624 Rt. 635 150 0.5 miles BC 07/99 I()'I' I A n3j]= 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. 1998 - 1999 Road Improvement Plan Page -4- UNSCHEDULED HARDSMACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS RATING 1 629 Rt.608 to 1.15 miles east Rt.622 98 5.35 miles BC 99 2 689 N Rt. 600 S Rt. 600 63 4.2 miles GA 90 3 704 Rt. 683 WV line 174 3.3 miles BC 86 4 618 Rt. 622 Rt. 608 92 3.3 miles BC 83 5 679 0.3 miles west Rt. 608 to 0.5 miles east Rt. 600 94 2.5 miles GA 79 6 676 0.83 mile south Rt. 671 to Rt.677 168 0.87 miles GA 75 7 692 1.2 mi. NE Rt. 600 to Rt. 671 137 1.4 miles GA 73 8 734 1.27 miles SW Rt.522N to 2.27 miles SW Rt. 522N 99 1 mile GA 73 9 612 Rt. 612 Rt. 608 92 3.2 miles I BC 67 10 629 Rt.631 Rt. 625 149 1.8 miles BC 64 11 695 2.3 miles north Rt. 522 to WV 83 0.9 miles GA 62 12 733 Rt. 50W Rt. 707 61 1.3 miles BC 61 13 607 Rt. 600 end State Mainten. 113 0.78 miles BC 60 14 638 Rt. 625 Rt. 759 86 0.8 miles BC 60 15 709 Rt. 636 Rt. 735 133 2.7 miles OP 59 16 636 Rt. 640 Rt. 641 46 1.5 miles OP 59 17 636 Rt. 709 1 Rt. 735 147 1.1 miles OP 55 S 1998 - 1999 Road Improvement Plan Page -5- UNSCHEDULED HARDSURFACE ROAD Il14PROVEMENT PROJECTS RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADTDIST MAGIS RATING 19 671 Rt. 669 to West Vir inia 168 0.3 miles ST 54 20 696 Rt. 522N Rt. 694 81 1.3 miles GA 52 21 836 Rt. 11N to end state maintenance 75 0.8 miles ST 49 22 634 Rt. 635 Rt. l is 180 0.25 miles OP 47 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. 1998 - 1999 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. 1998 - 1999 INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN RANK ROUTE FROM TO DESCRIPTION MAGIS F/Y 1 617 Rt. 704 WV Line Spot Widen BC 98/99 2 707 Rt. 259 Rt. 610 S22t Widen BC 98/99 3 612 N. Rt. 600 to S. Rt. 600 S t Widen BC 98/99 4 664 At 0.27 MW Rt. 660 Replace Pipe Culvert w/Box Culvert ST 98/99 5 629 Rt. 622 Rt. 608 Spot Widen BC 98/99 6 607 Rt. 600 end State Maintenance Spot Widen BC 98/99 7 Lakeside Subdivision Improvements 165 lbs. Plant Mix SH 98/99 8 629 Rt. 622 to 1.15 ME Spot Widen BC 98/99 9 704 Rt. 7517 WV Line Spot Widen BC 98/99 10 661 Intersection Rt. 661 / F-732 New Turn Lane GA/ST 99/00 11 T-1102 Rt. i 1 to 0.14 ME Widen/New Base & Overlay OP 99/00 12 688 at 0.02 MW Rt. 684 Install Drop Inlet & Pipe GA 99/00 13 704 1.27 MS Rt. 632 to 2.5 MS Improve Sight Distance BC 99/00 14 600* County wide improvement Install Guardrail N/A 99/00 15 671 0.08 ME Rt. 742 to 0.07 MW Rt. 742 Improve Alignment ST 99/00 16 656 500' N. Rt. 659 to 1500' N Rt. 659 Install Guardrail ST 99/00 1998 - 1999 Road Improvement Plan Page -7- ABBREVIATIONS: MAGIS - Magisterial District in which incidental construction will occur. F/Y - Fiscal Year in which incidental construction will occur. MN - Miles North MS - Miles South ME - Miles East MW - Miles West * 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. 1998 -1999 INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN ROUTE FROM TO DESCRIPTION MAGIS F/Y EANK 631 0.2 ME Rt. 628 to 0.27 ME Widen Shoulder BC 99/00 689 Rt. 600 to 1.93 MS S t Widen GA 99/00 Colle a Park Subdivision Im rovements 165 lbs. Plant Mix SH 99/00 Wakeland Manor Subdivision Improvements 165 lbs. Plant Mix SH 99/00 ABBREVIATIONS: MAGIS - Magisterial District in which incidental construction will occur. F/Y - Fiscal Year in which incidental construction will occur. MN - Miles North MS - Miles South ME - Miles East MW - Miles West * 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. 1998 - 1999 Road Improvement Plan Page -8- NEW ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS INCORPORATED INTO 1998 -1999 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE No new projects were requested for the 1998 - 1999 update. No new projects were requested for the 1998 - 1999 update. Project #10: Welltown Road (Route 661) - new turn lane at Stonewall Industrial Park. Project #11: T-1102 in Middletown - widen road, improve base, and new surface. Project #12: Stony Hill Road (Route 688) - install drop inlet and pipe. Project #13: Back Creek Road (Route 704) - improve sight distance. Project #14: Route 600 - install guardrail throughout county as determined by VDOT. Project #15: Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) - improve alignment. Project #16: Greenwood Road (Route 656) - install guardrail. Project #17: Marlboro Road (Route 631) - widen shoulder. Project #18: Adams Road (Route 689) - spot widen. Project #19: Apply plant mix throughout the College Park Subdivision as needed to improve various roads in which pavement failure is a problem. Project #20: Apply plant mix throughout the Wakeland Manor Subdivision as needed to improve various roads in which pavement failure is a problem. 1998 - 1999 Road Improvement Plan Page -9- ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUNDED UNDER 1997 - 1998 SECONDARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION BUDGET No major road improvement projects were funded from the 1997 - 1998 Road Improvement Plan. Redland Road (Rt. 701) from Whitacre Road (Rt. 703) to West Virginia line. Apple Pie Ridge Road (Rt. 739) - construct left turn lane. Apple Valley Road (Rt. 652) - construct right turn lane. Marlboro Road (Rt. 63 1) - improve sight distance. Cedar Grove Road (Rt. 654) - apply plant mix. Brick Kiln Road (Rt. 783) - apply plant mix. Tyson Drive (Rt. 861) - apply plant mix. Hunting Ridge Road (Rt. 608) - replace bridge over Back Creek. Sulphur Spring Road (Rt. 655) - apply plant mix. Adams Road (Rt. 689) - apply plant mix and spot widen. Windsor Lane (Rt. 1300) - apply plant mix. L E G E N D Major Projects . , Hard Surface Projects �0 /\ 4161 o° s2 , ' Cross { ( r� f ` ' c �� nctiono) � f '" S / /'� C � °.,� L so Game bor Gore 1 lea b�L Hayfields'`?- ! V i Ibiatt /Roue L ✓� H111 W' hester 2 37 Star i � \ rte, �^, �'-�f?; �•. ee Tar}Ftery N Pr ,� S S �'de henan o h o1,, , 11 � W E 1dl c S c� 3 0 2 a m!. Stepgy ens CitZ, Zl- a �J U �If 0 ^ 0 a FRf DEMCKcoUNTY,vlporWiA Road Improvement Projects s Depadme■I of Pl■.■ia� a■d De.elopw� 10-23-97 HARD SURFACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RATING SYSTEM POLICY Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on October 7, 1997 The following procedures are intended to delineate the steps necessary for the application of this rating system policy. Adherence to these procedures will ensure consistency in the application of this rating system policy for existing and future hard surface road improvement project requests. This policy shall be effective following the adoption of these procedures through a public hearing process held by the Board of Supervisors and shall only be altered through the same process. Information pertaining to the rating system application for each hard surface road improvement project shall be maintainers in the Frederick County Planning Department database system. The Board of Supervisors shall have the authority to revise the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan subsequent to the application of the rating system to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County. RATING SYSTEM REVIEW AGENCIES • Candidate projects shall be rated by the Frederick County Planning Department, the Frederick County Transportation Committee, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). ' One rating sheet shall be prepared for each candidate project by each review entity. • The Frederick County Planning Department shall rate each candidate project. • The Transportation Committee members shall rate each candidate project within their respective magisterial districts. • The VDOT Residency shall rate each candidate project through information received from the Maintenance Supervisors for all roads within their respective maintenance districts. RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY Candidate projects shall be rated utilizing the following information and methodology for each category: 1)Average Daily Traffic Couat - utilize the most recent traffic counts for each candidate project provided by the VDOT Residency. 2) Occupied.nom - utilize the Frederick County Planning Department addressing database and digital mapping system to determine the total number of occupied structures that have direct access to, or whose only means of ingress and egress from a private road is achieved by each candidate project. a) Surface Width - obtain surface width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency Maintenance Supervisors. b) Shoulder Width - obtain shoulder width data for each candidate project through the VDOT Residency Maintenance Supervisors. C) Hori7ontnl Curvature - horizontal curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance around the curve is limited by cut sections or vegetation traveling at normal driving speeds. I RATING SYSTEM APPLICATION METHODOLOGY (Continued) d) Vertical Curvature - vertical curvature is determined to be deficient if sight distance is significantly reduced or eliminated due to the rise and fall of the road segment traveling at normal driving speeds. e) Drainage - candidate projects shall be determined to have good, fair, or poor drainage utilizing the following guidelines: Good: Pipes are of adequate size and number. Water drains away from the roadway and creates no problem with surface maintenance. Ditches are of adequate size which produce no flooding within the roadway. Fair: Pipes are of adequate size; however, additional pipes may be needed. Water drains away from the roadway with minimal maintenance problems. Drainage ditches are in good condition, require little maintenance, and produce no flooding within the roadway. Poor: Pipes are not adequate in size or number. Ditch lines are inadequate and require extra maintenance. Water does not drain from the roadway effectively, creating maintenance problems and flooding. f) Accident Data - obtain police accident report data reflecting property damage and personal injury from the VDOT Residency Traffic Engineering Division. 4) School Bus Travel - utilize information reflecting current or proposed school bus travel routes for each candidate project provided by the Frederick County Public Schools Transportation Supervisor. 5) Time On Road Plan - utilize information from current and previously approved Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plans maintained within the Frederick County Planning Department to determine when candidate projects were incorporated. 3 RATING SYSTEM POINTS APPLICATION • Total points are determined for each category element. A cumulative total is obtained for each candidate project utilizing the total points derived from each category element. • The cumulative total for each candidate project is provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by all review entities. An average is determined for each candidate project utilizing the cumulative points from each review entity sheet and dividing by three. • All candidate projects are ranked from the highest cumulative point average to the lowest cumulative point average within their respective classification. If two or more candidate projects have the same cumulative point average, a tie -breaking system will be utilized. Each affected candidate project will be compared to the others starting with the category of greatest weight and working through the categories of lesser weights respectively until the tie is broken. • The cumulative point average for each candidate project shall be final. Any citizen request or Board action which results in the alteration of a previously rated and ranked candidate project will require a new rating application by all review entities. The altered candidate project will then be incorporated into the Hard Surface Road Improvement Plan accordingly. HARD SURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FORMAT • The Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan will reflect the candidate projects with the highest cumulative point average that can be incorporated into the VDOT Six -Year Fiscal Plan based on available funding. This information will be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department by the VDOT Residency. • All remaining candidate projects will be placed on an Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list which will be incorporated within the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Candidate projects incorporated into this section of the plan will be ranked from the highest cumulative point average to the lowest cumulative point average. 2 HARD SURFACE ROAD EMPROVEIVIENT PLAN FORMAT (Continued) The VDOT will advise the Frederick County Transportation Committee when funding is available for the inclusion of new candidate projects within the Hard Surface Road Improvement Projects section of the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. All candidate projects placed on the Unscheduled Hard Surface Improvement Projects list, as well as newly requested candidate projects, will be reviewed by all review agencies to determine current conditions. Appropriate ranking for all candidate projects will be determined at that time and placed accordingly. NEW PROJECT REQUESTS A written request must be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department which describes the location of the candidate project, the origin and terminus of the segment, and a petition signed by at least 51 % of all property owners fronting on the proposed segment indicating their willingness to participate in right-of-way dedication should the project receive favorable recommendation by the Board of Supervisors. The Transportation Committee shall recommend new project requests which meet this criteria after determining that the candidate project includes a segment of a state route that has a rational origin and terminus. PROJECT REMOVAL Road improvements projects shall be removed from the plan once VDOT has notified Frederick County that the project has been funded and advertised for bid. The Board of Supervisors may remove projects from the plan if VDOT has provided notification that right-of-way efforts have been ceased. 5 PC REVIEW DATE: 11-19-97 BOS REVIEW DATE: 12-10-97 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #007-97 WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY LOCATION: The property is located on Westminster Canterbury Drive (Route 1318) off of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 North). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 53 -A -63A, 53 -A -63B, 53 -A -52B, and 53-4-34 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance); Present use: Residential and Assisted Living/Health Care Facility. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North - Zoned: RP Use: Residential South - Zoned: LR (Low Residential) Use: Residential / Vacant East - Zoned: RP Use: Vacant West - Zoned: RP Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Residential/Assisted Living Facility REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from Bob Childress dated October 24, 1997. Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer are available Inspections Dept.: Buildings shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 308, and 310, Use groups I (Institutional) and R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996. Will comment further at the time of the site plan review. Westminster Canterbury NOP 9007-97 Page 2 November 10, 1997 Fire Marshal: The Site Plan for this project must be submitted to the Winchester Fire and Rescue Dept., as well as Frederick County, as the City is the primary service provider of Fire and Rescue services. 2. Fire Lane access and hydrant locations will be reviewed at the time of Site Plan submittal. Burning of land clearing debris requires a permit from the Fire Marshal's Office. Burning of building construction debris is not permitted. 4. During construction, access to all structures, hydrants, and Siamese locations must be maintained at all times. Staging of construction materials, trailers, vehicles and other equipment within 20' of a fire hydrant is prohibited. Temporary street address signs must be posted when construction begins. Countv Engineer: Stormwater management has been indicated for future development. Detailed design will be required at the time of the site plan submission. The proposed master development plan dated 10/22/97 is approved by the Public Works Department as submitted. Citv of Winchester Planning: While the western expansion brings development closer to existing City residences, it does so outside the City's PUD District, and this requires no rezoning approval in the City. Layout seems to minimize impact on existing emeraencv access drive. Minor associated revisions to eliminate west serve road and expand maintenance garage in City can be handled as a City site plan application. Planning and Zonin Proiect History The Board of Supervisors rezoned the property on which the Westminster -Canterbury facility is located on .-august 24. 198.: (Rez. 4005-83). The ensuing development of the property was prior to the County's current MDP requirements. Subsequent cottage/duplex development on the property in 1991 and 1994 necessitated the approval of Master Plans 9005-91 and 9008-94, and the rezoning of 2.9 acres of B'_ zoned land to RP (Rez. 4005-91). Project Scope Westminster -Canterbury is proposing a two-phase development. Initially, they plan to develop a forty-eight (48) unit assisted -living residential facility. In the future, they plan to develop eighteen (IS) cottage/duplex units. Both phases are wholly within Frederick County. Westminster Canterbury MDP 9007-97 Page 3 November 10, 1997 The assisted living residential facility is an extension of their current facility in which there are two hundred (200) existing units with an additional one hundred ninety two (192) previously approved, yet undeveloped, units. Of the existing units eighty-five (85) are in the City and one hundred fifteen (115) are in the County. With regards to the undeveloped units, one hundred twenty-one (121) are in the City and seventy-one (71) are in the County. It should be noted that the existing health care facility will lose 32 units when this facility is added. This results in a gain of 16 units. The cottage/duplex development is in addition to the twenty-six (26) cottages that exist on the property. Access to the cottage development is to be provided through private driveways that connect the existing Westminster -Canterbury Drive. Issues Staffs review of this 11IDP has highlighted no significant concerns. The ;Toss density of the project, at 4.9 units per acre, is below the maximum permitted gross density for this development which is 5.5 units per acre. Twenty-three (23) acres of open space, which is 46 percent of the development, have been provided. This surpasses the minimum open space requirement which is 30 percent. Furthermore, the acreage of disturbed environmental features is significantly lower than the amount of disturbance permitted. The following relatively minor issues should be considered by the Planning Commission. 1) Transportation. The proposed private driveways that provide access to the future cottage developments should be aligned to form a cross intersection. These driveways should also intersect Westminster -Canterbury Drive at approximately right angles. In addition, a note to the effect of "Private driveway providing access to the future cottages will not/never connect with Old Fort Road" should be added to the NOR 2) Buffer and Screening. The applicant is correctly showing a one -hundred -(100) foot perimeter single family separation buffer adjacent to all abutting single Camily residences However, this residential separation buffer is not required adjacent to the Tudor Square and the Canterbury Square developments, and may be removed from the tiIDP. Also, the "A" category zoning district buffer shown adjacent to the Hiett and Weber should be removed. These properties have split RP/B2 zoning with the B2 portion fronting along Route 522. The detail of all buffers is to be determined at the site plan stage. Westminster Canterbury MDP 9007-97 Page 4 November 10, 1997 3) Recreational Units. The applicant is showing a proposed Therapy Pool. Additional detail should be provided on the MDP regarding this pool in addition to the recreational units that currently exist at this facility to determine that the recreational unit requirement is being met. It would appear from visiting this property that this is being accomplished. 4) Environmental Features. The location of the environmental features, in addition to the area that is to be disturbed, should be shown on the MDP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 11-19-97 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Westminster -Canterbury Master Development Plan. The overall concept of this Master Development Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff asks the Planning Commission to ensure that all review agency comments are adequately addressed prior to final approval of this plan. 0 UcevDA;\Co',I.l�tFN rs\wsr>rvsrn .�,+oN 10.24.1997 13:05 P. al Post -It brand fax 1. ;mrtta! memo 7571 • of o,a.. ����► lVir.M$.rl�S•n.' 1 2. CO. QL ti 4 •.. •pt Pnoew M lav w _. COMMONWE`j_Uj-Hof VIRG NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OAVIO R. GEHR EDINSUAG RESIDENCY ComfV13SIO C-R 14031 0l0 VALLEY PIKE P.O. BOX 278 JERKY A. COPP EOIN(IURG. VA 22824-0278 RESICENT ENGINEER GO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS fAX(5 0) 984- 9g4 S ? ,Ax,s.al �..�� WES'T'MINSTER CANTERBURY October 24,1997 We have no overall objections to this streets shown are private and ProPe1'ty's master development plan. All external Seconds p cannot be considered eligible for addition to our Standards and Frederick County Ordinance Requirements. ce System UnW they � Subdivision Street Design The existing entrance serving the prOperty at the end of Route 1318 is adequate for the P?Oposed improvements. However, we are concerned with potential impacts at the Route 1318 and 522 North intersection- Existing and proposed traffic impacts at this intersection may necessitate improvements, i.e. turn Iane expansion and signalization. The developer should be required to participate in the costs of any improvements. Detailed traffic generation data including existing and proposed uses on this site existing uses along Route 1318, counts on Route 522, and anticipated splits at the Route 1318 and 522 intersection should be provided at the site plan stage to determine if the aforementioned improvements will be necessary. This plan should be revised to identify Westminster-Canter'oury Drive as Route 1318 Si ed: RBC/ rf xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff (w/ copy of plan) WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Robert B. Childress, Tran,, Engineer MDP #007-97 PIN: 53 -A -63A, 63B, 52B Westminster Canterbury 11-07--97 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package 1. R APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department ofPlanning and Development Use Only_ Date application received 10-;-4-17 Complete_ Date ofacceptance. : 7-Q7 Incomplete. Date ofreturn. Application #� Project Title : WE -1 1 r --<i TEF �= . N T�F Owner's Name: ATT; MIC1-fAE - PEASt_c ! 3. Applicant Address: Phone Lumber 4. Design Company Address: Phone dumber Contact dame: (Please list the names of ail owners or parties in interest) G--fe-c-CN wf rz, t4G= Pa`ie r5 Frederick Countv, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: -! Es Tt.,fi I.1s�Ct%' GAt" ti�ia 21� p - O�F 6. Total Acreage: C 3 vca-c-- REy +5� 7. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): b) Current Zoning: F—E C) Present Use: {-St DcN TA (_ d) Proposed Uses: i DcN TA t -- e) e) Adjoining Property Information: Property Identification Numbers Property Uses North J . P PcS+C South -((A-)1 60 --3 6—EP-L7)F-5(vITH, East ' 3 2- _ I - 9- G-cF-AL- P. SM I TH West OLDFa;:,1-TSuF�)D f) iviagisterial District: tjEsr i= S. Is this an original or amended ✓taster Development Plan" Original Amended I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick Countv Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all continuous land under single or common o"nership. .-alt required material %,.-ii] be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: Date: Pa,e WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' TM#53-((A))-63A TAX MAP# OWNER 131-6-E-5 Davis, James A and Janet C. 504 Marion St. Winchester, Va. 22601 131-6-E-6 Resident 508 Marion St. Winchester, Va. 22601 131-6-E-9 Wood, Herbet A. Jr., et ux 520 Marion St. Winchester, Va. 22601 131-6-E-11 A Gibbs, Paula H. 528 Marion St. Winchester, Va. 22601 131-6-E-12 McLouizhlin, Dermis J. 532 Marion St. Winchester, Va. 22601 131-6-E-13 Rogers. Charles P. et ux 536 Marion St. Winchester. Va. 22601 131-6-E-14 Von Payr, Hans et ux 540 Marion St. Winchester. Va. 22601 131-6-E-15 Willis, William D. et ux 606 Old Fort Road Winchester, Va_ 22601 131-6-C-12 Baker, William H. et ux 545 Old Fort Road Winchester, Va. 22601 131-6-C-13 Boppe, -N/l. Lee et ux 601 Old Fort Road Winchester. Va_ 22601 132-1-4 Lawrence, Edward C. & Ann B. 469 Fairmont Ave. Winchester, Va. 22601 131-6-D-14 Jones, Robert, Mark & Jo Allen 540 Old Fort Road Winchester, Va. 22601 131-6-D-15 Glaize Development, Inc. 131-6-D-16 302 N. Cameron St. 131-6-D-17 Winchester, Va. 22601 111-3-C-14 Moore, Thomas G. & Sally C. 605 Old Fort Road Winchester, Va. 22601 111-3-C-15 Carey, Dennis L. & Diane F. 609 Old Fort Road Winchester, Va. 22601 111-3-C-16 Lloyd, Thomas D. et ux 613 Old Fort Road Winchester, Va. 22601 111-3-C-17 Keith, Kimberly D. & Isaac A. IV 617 Old Fort Road Winchester. Va. 22601 111-1-4 Hack Land Trust 111-1-5 974 East Macedonia Church Rd. Stephens City, Va. 22655 111-3-E-16 Pota, Anthony 610 Old Fort Road Winchester. Va. 22601 132-1-4 Smith, Gerald F. 53-A-63 P.O. Box 3588 Winchester. Va. 22604 53-A-60 Lewis, John P. & David P. Box 3300 Winchester, Va. 22601 53-A-61 Hiett, Russell D. & Ann B. 53 -A -61A 930 Autumn View Lane Winchester, Va. 22603 53-A-53 Weber, Katherine P. 8301 Robey Avenue Annandale, Va. 22003 53-A-7 Luttrell, Marlene R. 204 Margaret Lane Winchester, Va. 22603 53 -A -2-A-4 Fishel, Linda Sue 107 Redwood Lane Winchester, Va. 22603 53 -A --2-A-5 Peacemaker, Wayne J. 1243 North Frederick Pike Winchester. Va. 22603 53A -2-A-6 Campbell. Benjamin E. 111 Redwood Lane Winchester, Va. 22603 53 -A -2-A-7 McDaniel. Evelyn J. & Loring 113 Redwood Lane Winchester. Va_ 22603 53A-2-13-2 Moomaw-. Preston E.. Jr. 53A -2 -B -6A 321 Cedar Grove Road 53A -2-B-7 Winchester. Va. 22603 53A -2 -B -2A Jenkins, James W. 53A -2-B-3 108 Redwood Lane Winchester, Va. 2`_'603 53A -2 -B -3A Simmons. Chester W. 112 Redwood Lane Winchester. Va. 22603 53A-2-13-4 Fogle, Richard Harold 117 Oak Side Lane Winchester. Va. 22603 53A -2-B-5 Simmons, Paul E., Sr. 115 Oak Side Lane Winchester, Va. 22603 53A -2 -B -5A Phillips, Wendall H. 53A -2-B-6 113 Oak Side Lane Winchester, Va. 22603 53 -A -2-C-5 Storm, William E. & Hilda M. 110 Oak Side Lane Winchester, Va. 22603 53A -2-C-6 Jenkins, Charles L. Jr. 1333 Ambrose Drive Winchester, Va. 22603 53 -A -2-C-7 Catlett, Kenneth J. 53 -A -2-C-8 c/o Satoko Catlett 114 Oak Side Lane Winchester, Va. 22603 53A -2-C-13 Drummond, Tereas S. c/o Teresa Jackson 111 Hickory Lane Winchester, Va. 22603 53A -2-C-14 Foreman, Roger L. & Darlene L. 113 Hickory Lane Winchester. Va. 22603 53A -2 -C -14A Clay, Mildred Helen 53A -2-C-15 115 Hickory Lane Winchester. Va. 22603 53A -2-C-16 Fahnestock, Elton R. 53A -2-C-17 117 Hickory Lane 53A -2-C-16 Winchester, Va. 22603 53A -2-D-5 Bean, Bem Lou Reeves 53A -2-D-6 112 Hickory Lane 53A -2-D-7 Winchester, Va. 22603 53A -2-D-8 Place, Thomas J. 53A -2-D-9 116 Hickory Lane Winchester. Va. 22603 53B-4-1 Schelble, Carol 123 Rugby Place Winchester, Va. 22603 53B-4-2 North Frederick Realty 53B-4-7 P.O. Drawer 2097 53B-4-10 Winchester, Va. 22603 53B-4-11 53B-4-12 53 B-4-14 53B-4-16 53B-4-18 53B -4-20A 53-B-4-3 Toan, Douglas R. & Michael L. Bryan P.O. Box 2800 Winchester, Va. 22604 53B-4-4 Toan, Douglas R. 360-2 McGhee Rd. Winchester, Va. 22603 53B-4-5 Beverley, Marshall J. Jr. and Sharon W. 109 Rugby Place Winchester, Va. 22603 53B-4-6 Kelsey, Joseph & Roberta 107 Rugby Place Winchester, Va. 22603 53B-4-8 Butler, Benjamin M. & Ann R. P.O. Box 2097 Winchester, Va. 22604 53B-4-9 Butler. Stephen G. P.O. Box 2097 Winchester, Va. 22604 53B-4-13 Bryan, Michael L. 53B-4-15 12 Rouss Avenue 53B-4-17 Winchester. Va. 22601 53B-4-19 Sewell, Zana Gail c/o Gail S. Unger 120 Rugby Place Winchester, Va. 22603 53B-4-20 Pugh, G. Schott & Lori P. 122 Rugby Place Winchester, Va. 22603 53D-1-(1 through 42) 53D-2-(65 through 87 and 92 through 96) Tudor Square Subdivision Section One Deed Book 642, Page 122 - 126 Tudor Square Subdivision Section Two Deed Book 676, Page 782 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAY: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director t4 RE: 1998 Comprehensive Policy Plan Update Discussion DATE: November 5, 1997 Included with this memorandum is the information that is proposed for the update of the 1998 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. This information has been considered by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) during their past three meetings and has been unanimously endorsed by this body. The information proposed for the update of the 1998 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan includes text and table amendments to Chapter 3: Population and Housing, Chapter 4: Economy, Chapter 5: Environment, Chapter 6: Land Use, Chapter 8: Community Facilities and Services, and Chapter 9: Parks and Recreation, the inclusion of the Route 37 West Land Use Plan which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 7, 1997, and the revision and conversion of all of the 8 x 10 maps to include current information within an ArcView format. Staff asks that the Planning Commission review this information for discussion purposes. Staff will undertake the necessary steps to legally advertise these amendments for the December 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, and will modify this information accordingly if required. ll) 7 North Kent Street • Winchester. Virl-inia 22001-5000 Text and Table Amendments Refuse Collection, landfill, and Recycling Refuse collection service is provided by Frederick County at 12 refuse collection stations. Nine of these stations consist of hydraulic compactor machines with separable roll -off containers; the other three sites consist of front end dumpsters. Currently, the County is in the process of converting dumpster sites to compactor stations when warranted by tonnage levels. The County should continue to convert dumpster sites to compactor sites as tonnage increases. Consolidation of sites during the conversion process is also desirable, when practical. The idea of curbside p ekup lis being studied in the densely populated areas of ;Frederick County that are currently served by;public.water and sewer. The Frederick County Landfill is a regional facility that receives refuse from Frederick and Clarke Counties and the City of Winchester. The landfill is operated by Frederick County as a an enterprise fund and the landfill operation is fee sustaining. The management and planning of landfill operations is solely the responsibility of Frederick County, with input from anoversikht committee comprised of representatives from Frederick County,'Clarke Courity, aril the City©f Winchester. _ _ Closure of the older section of the landfill, which opened in 1976, was completed in 1994. A new 160 acre tract of adjacent land, purchased in 1986, was opened for land filling during 1993. Approximately 90 acres of this tract has been permitted for land filling under the newly adopted Subtitle "D" Solid Waste Regulations. Both the close-out of the old section and the construction of the new section have been carried out in accordance with new state regulations that require much more sophisticated environmental protection measures, including composite impermeable liners, a complete leachate collection system, leachate treatment facility, groundwater monitoring and gas monitoring. The current landfill was originally estimated to have adequate capacity for 25 _years commencing in October of 1993. The development of a construction debris landfill should extend the life of the current sanitary landfill approximately eight years, resulting in a life of 33 years. A tract of land consisting of 109 wooded acres was purchased from Ryland Carper for the future development of a construction debris landfill. The permitting and design of this new construction debris landfill was will be completed in x-996 1997, with the commencement of construction in the same calendar year. The County should reevaluate tonnage, revenue, and expenditure trends every year and set fees accordingly. The County should also continue to evaluate new technologies for waste reduction that would extend the life of the landfill. During the 1990's. the County wiif piacc, tfloti- ji IUAwos b placed collection boxes for recyclable materials atall of the Citizen Conveyance Centers located within the -ou.ty. J b M1111— governmentsMS �'-� This L_3- [nb hgCIIVL b . Through this effort, the County was able to meet the 1995 recycling mandate of 25% placed on localities by the Commonwealth of 3 Virginia. Due o the rapid growth in;the County, additional programs have° been implemented to enable he County to maintain :the 1995 recycling mandate of 25 %. These programs include brush and yard waste mulching, waste oil recycling, fire shreddin&'l and Household hazardous waste collections'. These new programs assisted the County in achieving the 25% recycling mandate for'1996. Schools During the past several decades, student enrollment has increased steadily. In particular, the decade of the 90's has seer witnessed a dramatic increase in student enrollment. In 1990, student enrollment was 8,323 students. In the fall of x-996 1997, student enrollment was 9,974 10,215. which represents i i � an increase of 1,=5't 1,992 students. or =i 242.%x since 1990. In +996 1997, of the nine ten elementary schools, five exceed 90% of capacity: Apple Pie Ridge (935), Armel (W3%) (92%), Bass Indian Hollow (94%) (90%), Middletown (f67%) (101%), and Redbud Run f90,'50 (92%). , b b SeLlIC11=Y S-1-1kili in the fail of 1996, renovation and COMM U—M OF a', addition to SCIINC&I'V Road i. mid the L The new Stonewall Elementary School opened in the fall of 1997. Construction of additions to Armel and Middletown elementary schools will be complete by the beginning of the 1998-1999 school year and will result in increased elementary capacity of approximately 270 students. A new elementary school in the Back Creek Magisterial District is slated to open for the 1999-2000 school year. Middle school enrollment is 85% of capacity and high school enrollment is 91 % of capacity. 4 • I. r 7 • toll Mer. 0 WT. two a qv� a 1 •• • •• •1 • •• • • 01 L-2 RM I MVA 0002r. %;WJ JLVWJ to or. tote I on,V1 1hM&V • • • DMI' • • �• r �• • • • • • • r • • • • • • I/ 7seven schoois are L —a! fniprovements Plan ove, the 11— yew -s shouid hefy keep pace with inczeased entaffnient wid reduce the nced fbl Modular anits. Review of current enrollment data indicates high school enrollment' over the next several years will nearly equal orslightly exceed the practical capacity of the 'school divisions two high schools. 'A number of options, including the construction of a third high school, are being considered'by'the school board to provide additional classroom space at the high school 'level. The current total enrollment to capacity ratio is 89-% 87% of capacity. Enrollment meets or exceeds 90% of capacity at srx eight schools. ,meet, exceed of capacir.–y-- Great care is needed in considering the expansion of school capacity beyond what is needed to deal with current crowding and what is needed to replace outdated facilities. Enrollment, demographic, and development trends need to be carefully monitored. Theschool 'division faces a number -of challenges as the 21stcentury approaches;which will reqU ireL the careful allocation of scarce financial resources. Providing needed classroom space for a growing school age population and addressing the demand for educational services in the rapidly changing area: of technology are two major obstacles which will need to be overcome in the years ahead.' Continued residential growth in`Frederick 'County during the 90's has resulted in the need to allocate significant financial resources to the building of new facilities and the renovation of older schools. Steady growth in student population, particularly in eastern and southern Frederick County, will continue to require the construction of additional student capacity for the foreseeable future. The impact of providing instruction in the use of technology to prepare students to work and live in. the 21st century will necessitate increased expenditures for computer and computer related hardware and software. In addition, mandates from state and federal governments will require the: localities to expend additional financial resources to meet educational requirements set forth by'numerous laws and regulations. Business Corridors A project begun in 1993 and continuing into 199-1 was the de%elopment of land use plans for the County's commercial and business corridors_ The task of developing these plans was assigned to the County's Comprehensive Plans and Programs errmnitt-c:- Subcommittee. The crrmmittre subcommittee met monthly throughout the first part of 1993 to review and evaluate existing information and formulate an approach for the study. Public meetings were held in the summer of 1993 to gain citizen input. The three corridors studied were Route 7 from the interchange with Interstate 81, east to Woods Mill Road (Route 660); Route 50, from the 81 interchange, east to the eastern edge of Westview Business Park; and Route 11 South, from the Route 37 interchange, south to Stephens City. The subcommittee recognized that other corridors within the County which warrant warranted study; however,; these three were felt to be in the most immediate need for attention. In the case of'Route 7; and Route 50, new development in addition t4 the commercial development which'has been in existence for some time made the corridors a high priority.; In the case of Route 11, a ;request from the town of Stephens City to: participate in the planning of the Route 1 i corridor ;made this,,a Iogica choice for study at that time. Corridor Plans were developed as a result of a focused evaluation of the three corridors listed, including careful consideration of the characteristics of the particular areas and the stated desires of their residents. corridors.The saine efforts mid principles can, and shotild, be applied to othei business The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee has applied the same efforts and principles to other corridors that are being considered for business and industrial use. ;In 1995, the Round 1= U Community Land Use Plan was adopted which focuses on planning for the Route SO corridor, and the Round Hill Community Center. In 199631heRoute 11 North Land Use Plan was adopted which focuses on planning for the- Route 11: corridor between Interstate 81 Exits 317 and 321, and areas tothe east which will'be impacted'by the' construction of the Route 37 Eastern By=pass. The subcommittee recently completed work on the Route 37 West Land Use Plan which was adopted in October 1997. This plan focuses on planning for land immediately north of Phase I of the Round Hill Community land Use Plan and immediately west of the Winchester Medical Center. The construction of a new interchange along Route 37 at the Winchester Medical Center and the expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area are the catalyst for the development of this plan. The development of future business corridor land use plans will be undertaken by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee as directed by the Board of Supervisors. Potential areas for study include the extension of the Route 11 North Land Use Plan, as well as those corridors which are impacted by the construction of the Route 37 Eastern By-pass. Handley Librar-, Library service ,s provided to Frederick Countv through the Handley Regional Library. --�.�.��...�. .... ..�. .• ., iu. u�.Jl\. . .. ,il,.l J�.1 ♦�.J .. III�..II\,.J ll., l 1�U�.1 IV 1� L_UUI ILY, al IU l,_LUI Al. liVLLIILY. which also serves Clarke County and the City of Winchester. As OF August 1996, Currently, there werc morc othar 14,S210are 17,743 active registered library users -f card holders in Frederick County. fn During the 1997 fiscal _year +93j�6. Frederick County residents borrowed F72,625 213,9.15 items from the Handley Library, the Clarke County Library br=rcir-irr Bcny-6iir, and the Bookmobile, an a 23.9% increase crt-_ - over the previous vear. The 0 I.ij y 1996, Bookmobile service to the residents of southern and westernFreder_ck County was expanded as 'the result of an agreement between_ the Library and Trinity Lutheran Church in Stephens_; City:; This agreement has altowed the. Library to :use the church parking lot on Wednesdays and Th ursdays;as a Bookmobile' stop::In addition, Trinity has allowedthe Library R. offer story hours for'childien in° the church social' hall'. During fiscal year 1937 nearly 1.000 children and adults have attended the story hours. T The°:regional library system continues to be below per capita state standards in the areas of books. square footage, seating, and periodical holdings; however, important steps have been taken to remedy this. The Frederick County! Board of Supervisors designated a site for a library building within the county in' 1995, and passed a resolution on August 13, 1997 to seek an architect to design the building, with a targeted opening date in 1999. Other improvements are proceeding simultaneously. The City of Winchester has hired an architect to plan and direct a complete renovation of the historic Handley Library, and a volunteer -directed campaign to raise three Million dollars for books for the regional system, which began last November, is more than one- d1ird' of the way towards its goal. •• I M -AVA III NIL -%W-.0 211MV.MosomwWROM of P"s •• : _ • :• • :. r• .• i • f • • _ .• i • • • r. @60401111 an LOIN• Mr d • I.ij y 1996, Bookmobile service to the residents of southern and westernFreder_ck County was expanded as 'the result of an agreement between_ the Library and Trinity Lutheran Church in Stephens_; City:; This agreement has altowed the. Library to :use the church parking lot on Wednesdays and Th ursdays;as a Bookmobile' stop::In addition, Trinity has allowedthe Library R. offer story hours for'childien in° the church social' hall'. During fiscal year 1937 nearly 1.000 children and adults have attended the story hours. T The°:regional library system continues to be below per capita state standards in the areas of books. square footage, seating, and periodical holdings; however, important steps have been taken to remedy this. The Frederick County! Board of Supervisors designated a site for a library building within the county in' 1995, and passed a resolution on August 13, 1997 to seek an architect to design the building, with a targeted opening date in 1999. Other improvements are proceeding simultaneously. The City of Winchester has hired an architect to plan and direct a complete renovation of the historic Handley Library, and a volunteer -directed campaign to raise three Million dollars for books for the regional system, which began last November, is more than one- d1ird' of the way towards its goal. Parks and Recreation This piuWsejdf.this chapter rs; to outline the County's recreational policies and to identify identifies implementation methods for estabfishing accamplis m"g recreational facilities, programs, studies, and plans. It is not meant to be a detailed recreation plan, but rather it is a part of the County's continuing planning process and a guide to decision making. Facilities The County currently owns and operates two regional parks. Clearbrook Park, located five miles north of Winchester on Route 11, consists of approximately 55 acres and Sherando Park, located two miles east of Stephens City on Route 277, consists of approximately 330 acres. Both regional parks currently serve the County's population with both active and passive recreational programs and facilities. In addition to these regional parks, five neighborhood parks have been developed which serve a more specific group with more limited facilities than those in the regional parks. The neighborhood parks are located at: Reynolds Store Fire Company and Gainesboro Fire Company in the Gainesboro District, North Mountain Fire Company and Round Hill Fire Company in the Back Creek District, and at Frederick Heights subdivision in the Shawnee District. These neighborhood parks consist primarily of playground equipment for young children. The exception is the park ar= at Fedc�ick Heights In 1987, master development plans were adopted for both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks. These master plans establish development goals for each park, identify unmet recreational needs, provide unifiers facility plans, and propose a development program for each park. The master plans for both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks reflect the recommendations of the County residents and national standards as outlined in the Virginia Outdoor Plan. These plans emphasize the development of a swimming pool complex and additional sports, picnic, maintenance, and other support facilities. Since the adoption of the master plans, the County has completed the construction of two outdoor swimming pool complexes, four soccer fields, a maintenance building, one shelter, a two playground areas, and two sand volleyball courts. expwid The County has also purchased an area to house the maintenance operation for Clearbrook Park. Additional recreational facilities currently provided are athletic fields, playground, and picnic areas with a variety of recreational opportunities such as horseshoes, fishing, paddle boats, and volleyball, open space areas and support facilities. Clearbrook Park, Sherando Park, and the neighborhood parks are maintained by the Parks Division of the County Parks and Recreation Department. As a result of a point operating agreement with the County School Board, the Parks and Recreation Department has use of the following Sherando High School facilities when thev are not in use by the high school: lighted football Field and track, baseball held, eight outdoor lighted tennis courts, and four outdoor lighted basketball courts. The Parks and Recreation Department's Community Center, which was built adjoined to Sherando M High School, opened in September of 1993 and contains two racquetball courts, a weight room and a multipurpose room. The Residential Performance Zoning regulations require the that open space be provided in most types of suburban development. In addition, recreational facilities are required in most -types -Of any residential,developriled.winch contws lois sues of fess than.S,QOQ sggare feet. It is required that such open space and facilities be dedicated to homeowners associations. There is a need to examine recreational and park needs in suburban and urban areas, specifically, ;the development of ;a bikeway and trail system. One need that has been identified is the development of a bikeway and trail system. To date, the County has committed to the construction of a 2.45 mile bicycle facility to serve several residential areas east of Stephens City. This bicycle facility will link those residential areas with Sherando Park and Sherando High School. Additional trails would provide residents the ability to travel safely from their homes to schools, stores, work or recreational areas without having to share the overcrowded arterial and ................ collector roads with automobiles. Also, there is a need to examine Residential Performance Zoning regulations to insure that the recreational needs are being met by what is currently being asked of the developer. Programs The Recreation Division of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department was created to provide a comprehensive and accessible program of recreational services and activities for the residents of Frederick County. A diverse range of recreational and enrichment programs are provided for all age groups. This broad base of activities includes, but is not limited to, instructional classes, environmental education programs, sports and athletics, health and fitness programs, cultural and special events, and trips and excursions. Programming responsibilities are assigned within the Division's four interest sections --Community Recreation, Senior Citizens, Aquatics Feilities, and Sports and Athletics. Staff members work together to identify, develop and implement those activities which most closely meet the interests and desires of the community. The Division typically implements programs along age group stratifications such as preschool, youth, teen, adult and senior adult; however, a shift in programming emphasis has resulted in the development of broader activities to appeal to family units. In particular, holiday events are planned to include parent and child in a variety of leisure opportunities. The majority of recreation programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department are held within the +4 15 public schools in Frederick County and the Parks and Recreation Department's Community Center. Consequently, a wide variety of recreation offerings has maximized use of the county school buildings. The joint efforts of the Frederick County School Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission/Department resulted in the inclusion of recreational facilities within Sherando High School. The Department's Community Center, which was built adjoined to Sherando High School, opened in September of 1993. 9 Citizen Participation Citizen participation and input regarding recreation programs and park development have been actively solicited on a regtriar basis since the creation of the department in 1971. The Parks and Recreation Commission consists of seven members, including one from each magisterial district, appointed by the Board of Supervisors for four year terms and two at -large members recommended by the Commission and appointed by the Board to serve staggered four year terms. Future Demands To help plan for the future leisure service demands, the Parks and Recreation Department has completed master plans for the County's two regional parks, studied national standards provided in the Virginia Outdoor Plan, and gathered survey information relating to the provision of leisure services. Through the utilization of these and any other available resources, it is projected that the following areas must be addressed if we are to meet future leisure demands: 1. Land acquisition to meet minimum standards 2. Facility development to meet minimum standards 3. Development of recreational centers within our mgionai y=ks 4. Increased programming for special populations 5. Increased programming for teens 6. Great diversity of programming so as to better meet the needs of the entire community. 7. Establishment of trail systems and bikeways Area Standards As suggested by the +9$9 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan, the area standard for local recreation and park sites in Virginia is ten acres of developed park land per thousand population. Frederick County has a population of approximately 52,200 53,200 (based on information provided by the Lot -d Fniifirc b Dist, 1996 provisional estimate data provided by the University of Virginia Center for Public Services) and currently maintains 404 acres of park land. Of the 404 acres assigned to the parks, about 240 acres would be considered developed. By the year 2000, using the population, projections provided by the Frederick County Planning Department an additional 150 acres will be needed and by the year 2010, another -100 150 will be required if we are to keep pace with the recommended standard of the ten acres per thousand. It is estimated by the Department of Parks and Recreation that by the year 2020, Frederick County will need approximately 740 800 acres of developed park land to adequately serve the County's population. H In meeting the ten -acre per thousand minimum standard for park land, it is recommended by the Virginia Outdoor Plan to consider the following types of park development: Size: 5 - 20 acres Plan at 3 acres/ 1000 Population Service Area: Approximately 5 - 15 minutes walking distance or one-half mile to one and one- half miles Administrative Responsibility: Local Unit of Government or Homeowners Association Purpose: The primary function of the neighborhood park is to provide limited types of recreation for the entire family within easy walking distance. Facilities should be provided for all age groups. Character: Intensive use and easy access are characteristics of this classification. Ideally, the site would have areas that are level to gently rolling to accommodate the intensive use facilities, with shaded areas for passive recreation. Location: If possible, the neighborhood park should be located near a school and /or the neighborhood center and away from railroads, major streets and other hazardous barriers. Potential Facilities: *badminton courts *ball diamond *basketball courts *bikeway *fishing pond *football/ soccer field *horseshoe courts *playground *picnic facilities *recreation center *shuffleboard courts *swimming pool *tennis courts *volleyball courts *walking trails Play fields usually serve a dual purpose is this type of facility. They provide an area for sports and running games and also serve as open space. Intensive use areas (the playground area and hard surfaced courts) are buffered from other activities by passive natural areas and pedestrian access corridors. Programmed activities such as organized athletics are often suitable in neighborhood parks. Although limited parking facilities are provided, site design should encourage pedestrian access to the greatest extent possible. Rural communities may want to consider deleting neighborhood parks and include their function in larger community parks which could better serve the needs of widely dispersed local population. From an economic standpoint, it would be more beneficial for a rural locality to have a few strategically located, well designed, larger facilities than to invest in several small sites and not have the funds to properly develop and maintain them. Size: 20 -50 acres Plan at 3 acres/ 1000 Population Service Area: Approximately 15 minutes driving time Administrative Responsibility: Local Unit of Government Purpose: Community parks should primarily support active recreation activities and be capable of withstanding intensive use, while still containing a fair amount of open space. Character: The site usually varies from relatively flat open space to moderately sloping wooded area. Such a park should be adaptable to a wide variety of recreational activities. Access is gained by auto, bicycles, or walking. Location: Locate when possible near the center of the community with good access and serviced by a public transportation system. Potential Facilities: * ball diamonds * basketball courts * beach/swimming area * fishing lake/stream access * football/soccer fields * horseshoe courts * natural areas * parking area * picnic facilities * playgrounds * recreation center * shuffleboard courts * swimming pool * tennis courts * trails: walking, hiking biking, fitness * volleyball courts A multitude of activities must be provided by this intensive -use recreational facility. The recreation center is often the focal point of the park. Organized activities are grouped in the surrounding area. Their location is dependent upon the natural terrain, needed for control, and vehicular access. Any existing natural qualities such as topography, water features, and trees etc.—, should be preserved and utilized as natural buffers between activity areas as well as to protect the recreation environment from surrounding, incompatible influences. These natural elements should also be used to provide a space for more passive forms of recreation such as nature walks. picnicl•.ing, and fishing. In the rural setting, this park category may take the place of the neighborhood park. It can better 11 serve a widely dispersed population than two or three smaller sites. Community parks, along with neighborhood parks (where applicable), usually meet most of the close -to -home recreation needs of most localities. Size: 50- 150 acres Plan at 4 acres/ 1000 Population Service Area: 15 - 25 minutes driving time 5 - 15 miles service radius Administrative Responsibility: Local Unit of Government Purpose: T�P-7 oral wks should serve the recreational needs of large portions of the local population. They should contain a wide variety of intensively developed areas for day use recreation while providing ample open space with generous buffers between activity areas. Character: The site could vary from flat open space to moderately to steeply sloping topography. It should be capable of supporting a wide variety of activities with ample buffer and natural areas. Sitting on a stream or lake is highly desirable. The regional park needs to be accessible by auto as well as pedestrians and bicycles. Location: When possible, locate the regional park so that it is near the center of the service area. It should be on or near a major strut an arterial or major collector road providing good access to the facility. In urban or suburban situations, easy access to mass transit is highly desirable. The site should also be accessible by pedestrians and bicyclists. Potential Facilities: *ball diamonds *basketball courts *fishing/boating *football/soccer fields *golf on large sites with ample acreage *horseshoe courts *lake or stream *natural area *parking areas *picnic facilities *playgrounds *recreation centers 13 *shuffleboard courts *swimming pool or beach area with swimming *tennis courts *trails *volleyball courts The recreation center may be found at the neighborhood, community, district, and -iase-erbarr parks regrrnaal parks. At the neighborhood level, the recreation center is usually constructed between 15, 000 and 20,000 square feet. It generally will include multipurpose rooms, an arts and crafts area, game room, kitchen, lounge and lobby, restrooms, and office. If a gymnasium is not available in a neighborhood school, the recreation center may also include a gymnasium and locker room facilities. The recreation center in a large park that serves a community , district, ot city ar will be considerably larger, from 26,%@ 40, 50,.000 100;.000 square feet, and will include several multipurpose rooms, gymnasium, indoor pool, shower and locker rooms, game room, arts and crafts area, an auditorium or areas for performing arts, class or club rooms, kitchen, large meeting room, restrooms, office, lounge or lobby, and some specialized areas such as a ceramics workshop or weight room. An important consideration in all recreation facilities is to provide adequate storage space. • ��f f - - - • / �� fk'sk"I I I L"011tvi 111I PLO mejamon,. • ■ �� if orf s Currently, the Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for operating and maintaining the following facilities: CIearbrook Park, covering 55 acres, is located approximately five miles north of Winchester, on Route 11. Clearbrook Park is open 365 days a year, from 8:30 a.m. to dark and includes: *fishing *fitness court *horseshoe courts *lighted athletic complex *maintenance & operation of all neighborhood parks *paddle boats *passive areas *picnic shelters, tables, and grills *playground *swimming pool 14 *three -acre lake *vintage red caboose *volleyball Sherando Park is located on Route 277, 1.8 rniies approximately . miles east of I-81, near Stephens City. The park consists of 330 acres, approximately one-half of which is undeveloped. oft the norffi side of Route Sherando Park is open 365 days a year, from 8:30 a.m. to dark and includes: *community center facilities *eight tennis courts *eighteen -hole disc golf course *fishing *fitness par course *five -acre lake *four outdoor basketball courts *four soccer fields *hiking trails *horseshoe pits *maintenance of outdoor areas at Sherando High School *paddle boats *passive areas *picnic shelters, tables, and grills *playground *radio airplane facility *swimming pool *two lighted athletic complexes *volleyball Based on the demand standards established by the +389 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan, Frederick County should use the following recommendations as a guide for future park development. 'fable 15: Facility Needs Based on Minimum Standards Established in the 1989 Virginia Outdoor Plan `{ w Needs Gap .. Needs Gap Needs Gap Existing Based on Based on Based on I7dits/1000 ' Or _ Papulation Papulation Population Facilit Po _ , on Facilities of 40,000 of 50,040 of 80,000 Archery Range 1150,000 0 0 1 1 Baseball Diamond 1/6,000 `4 *7 3 2 6 3 9 6 Basketball Court 1" I-688 5 34 5 5-5 7 75 11 1/5,000 Bicycle Trails 1 0 40 60 80 Mile/1,000 Soccer Fields 1'6,986 4 3 6 7 g +0 12 115,000 Horseshoes 1/10,000 8 -4 -2 0 Softball 1/3,000 **5 9 12 +6 15 4 21 Swimming Pools *** 1/10,000 2 2 3 1 6 15 Tennis Courts 1/2,000 10 23 1-0 3 20 7 30 17 Park Land l Oac. / 1, 000 404 -4 196 396 Ice Skating X0;000 1/30,0 0 1 + 2 2 Conclusions As the population of the Winchester -Frederick County area continues to increase, there will undoubtedly be greater emphasis placed on the County's Parks and Recreation Department. As indicated by the standards provided in the +989 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan, (referred to in this chapter), there currently exists a need to concentrate on further facility development just to meet present minimum standards, and a greater need to establish a long range capital improvement program to insure the provision of the physical amenities required to meet future leisure demands. At this time, priority should be given to bringing bring our park system up to the recommended minimum standard, but strong consideration should also be given to the acquisition of park land to meet future needs while desirable open space is still available at a reasonable cost. In addition to the facilities that are needed to meet current and future demands, the Parks and Recreation Department will also need additional professional staff if the County is to accommodate an already increasing demand for recreational programs. Recreation Policy GOAL - Contribute to the physical, mental, and cultural needs of the community, its economic and social well-being,. and its sense of civicpride and social responsibility through a complete program of parr and recreation. Strategy 1 - Insure that appropriate open space and facilities are provided with new development. Strategy 2 - Identify the recreational, parks, and open space needs of the County. Strategy 3 - Make available a wide range of year-round recreational opportunities. 16 Stra _¢x 4 - Seek alternative funding methods for the provision of existing and identified recreational needs. Stra�tezv. 5 - Encourage cooperative efforts with private, semi-public, and public providers of recreational opportunities. Implementation Methods: I. Prepare a County -wide recreation plan which identifies recreational, park, and open space needs. 2. Continue to solicit public opinion in planning parks and recreation 3. Continue to encourage the participation and financial support of civic groups, businesses, and other organizations and individuals for recreational needs. 4. Continue to utilize State and Federal grants and loans for financing anprogramming an County recreational needs, d especially for major capital projects. 5. Continue to expand our cooperative relationship with the Frederick County School Board jointly meeting identified County recreational needs. 6. Continue to cooperate with the private sector, the semi-public sector, and other public providers of recreation in meeting identified recreational needs. .AL, - (:ortdm4e, to develop the CoWnty ss regional park as a major source ol`'recrealio nal �a�lities arm activities.. . Strate.gy 1 - As finances are available, improvements to the Sherando and Clearbrook Parks should take place according to the adopted master plans. Implementation Methods: 1. Use the capital improvements planning process to provide improvements to the regional parks. 2. Seek alternative sources of funding for park improvements. 117 ie tha apFro�riai'eFupen.s mal teere rrurl frxcilides• are ,proWded ix urb an Strategy. I - Insure that appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided in association with new urban development. Strategy 2 - Provide for suitable recreational opportunities for all portions of the County. Strategy 3 - Provide for a trail system and bikeway plan. Implementation Methods: 1. Use a County -wide recreation plan to develop standards for open space and recreational facilities in new urban developments. 2. Use a County -wide recreation plan to identify the recreational needs of residents in all portions of the County. 3. Identify recreational needs associated with the Rural Community Centers. 4. Review land development regulations to insure that appropriate standards are provided for open space and recreational facilities in new developments. COAL - Provide recreaiivnal program and amvides based an idennfied needs and avdlable furrciing. Strategy 1 - Identify recreational program needs. Strategy 2 - Solicit public opinion on recreational programs to be provided. Strategy 3 - Coordinate with Frederick County School Board, the public sector, the semi-public sector, and private organizations for the provision of recreational program funds, services, and facilities. Implementation Methods: 1. Prepare a County -wide recreation plan identifying program needs. 2. Develop and maintain citizen participation in the identification of recreational program and facility needs. 3. Actively solicit contributions for the provision of recreational programs and program facilities, from all segments of the community, both public and private. 4. Structure the provision of all program facilities, such as indoor community centers, to recognize land use decisions and policies. 5. Actively utilize public, semi-public, and private facilities for the provision of recreational programs. Growth in Housing The number of permits issued for the construction of new homes has varied dramatically, following the rise and fall of the national housing market. The numbers of permits issued for new houses each year rose steadily in the early 1970's, but fluctuated in the middle 1970's. Starting from 1977, a steady decline in permits issued occurred reaching a low of only 212 permits in 1982. From 1982 to 1968, 198R permits for new houses increased steadily to an all-time high of 9% 1.102 permits in }988 1989. However, between +989 1990 and 19921, building permits issued for new residences in the County declined dramatically {} as a result of a recession in the national housing market. By 1992, the amount of permits issued decreased to a total of 5-2-19 568 permits. The permits issued in 1993, however, ended this four year decline. Seven hundred and efever f7i i) sixry4wo (762)'permits were issued for the construction of new homes in 1993. . New home construction permits issued peaked in +994; 1993 while figures for . the last three years haver declined. cLyv- . There were 653 permits issued in 1994, 610 permits issued in 1995, and 690 permits issued in 1996. Emergency Services The Frederick County Fire and Rescue System currently consists or ten volunteer fire and rescue companies. Of these companies, all ten provide Fire Suppression Services, eight provide Emergency Medical Ambulance Services. and two provide Medical "First Responder" Service. The County fire and rescue companies are as follows: Company i 1 - Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company Company 13 - Middletown Fire and Rescue Company Company 13 - Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company Company 14 - Gore Fire Company 19 Company 15 - Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company Company 16 - Gainesboro Fire and Rescue Company Company 17 - Star Tannery Fire Company Company 18 - Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company Company 19 - North Mountain Fire and Rescue Company Company 20 - Reynolds Store Fire and Rescue Company Airport The Winchester Regional Airport is a 362- 375 -acre, all weather, 24-hour general aviation airport with a 5,500 foot runway located southeast of the Route 50 interchmigeInterstate 81 Exit 313A. The facility currently has 75 tie down spaces, a 12,000 square foot public common hangar, a two ten unit, and -a one 20 -unit, and one twelve unit T -hangar buildings, and four private corporate hangars. These hangars accommodate +03 125 aircraft, including 14 corporate aircraft, ranging in size from small passenger planes to corporate jets. Services available include 24-hour U.S. Customs and Immigration. The Winchester Regional Airport Authority was formed by the Virginia General Assembly on July 1, 1987. The Authority consists of representatives from the City of Winchester, Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties. Since its formation, the Winchester Regional Airport Authoritv has embarked on an extensive airport improvement program to upgrade the facility. Projects accomplished under this program include updating the master plan and the construction of a runway extension, taxiway relocation, new General Aviation Terminal Building, T -hangar and corporate hangars, FBO/Maintenance hangar, above ground fuel storage facility, acrd safety areas at each end of the runway, and security and perimeter fencing. Collaborating with Frederick County and the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Authority has also made improvements to primary access roads to the airport. Sewer and water service has also been established. To date, more than $10 million dollars has been invested in Airport capital improvements, equipment, and promotions through Federal, State, and local funding. Capital improvements have been accomplished in order to comply with federal design standards. A Precision Instrument Approach is in the process of being implemented to provide 20 better all weather access to the Airport. This requires reg ` ed acquisition of additional land and navigatlI ion easements. Landacqutiin uidiudes an area foF a Fredenck:Couity satellite fue U11.ri station. Through the support of the member jurisdictions, the Winchester Regional Airport will continue to evolve in into a modern first class air transportation facility which will benefit and attract new industries and commercial business to the area. Future plans include bringing commercial air service to the airport providing tv g oxide the community alternative modes of transportation. Sewer and Water Facilities The location of public sewer and water lines determines where urban development will occur. The Urban Development Area described by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan is roughly the same as the service areas for public sewer and water. Because sewer and water facility location determines the location of urban development, great care is needed in planning where such facilities will be provided. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has the responsibility for the treatment, transmission, and distribution of potable water and the collection and transmission of wastewater. Most of the sewer and water mains and laterals in the County are owned, operated, and maintained by the Sanitation Authority. Frederick County and the Sanitation Authority have executed a Facilities Planning Agreement which sets forth procedures for the planning of sewer and water mains in the Countv. The agreement includes provisions for adopting a water and sewer facilities plan as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, specifying the location of mains over eight inches in size. It also includes provisions for review and update of the plan and for including sewer and water facilities projects in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. The City of Winchester owns and maintains sewer and water lines in portions of the County adjacent to the City corporate limits. Such lines have been extended into the County following a previous agreement between the City and the County. A Gravity Flow Sewer Agreement between the City of Winchester and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority has been adopted which specifies that either jurisdiction may transmit sewage from the other jurisdiction to the Opequon Plant if that sewage flows by gravity to the receiving jurisdiction. This agreement requires that the delivering area be of a minimum size and that the receiving fficHities have StIfficicrit . jurisdiction has adequate collection system capacity to accommodate the additional flows. The delivering jurisdiction will be charged for the service provided by the receiving jurisdiction. 21 ..... Sewage treatinen, Treatment. of wastewater generated in the County is provided by two sewage treatment plants: the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and the Parkins Mills Plant. The Opequon Plant serves the Abrams Creek drainage area and surrounding drainage areas east and north of Winchester, and provides sewage treatment for Winchester. The Parkins Mills plant serves the upper Opequon Creek, Wrights Run, and Stephens Run drainage areas. Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission In 1982, the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission was created by joint resolution of the City of Winchester and the Frederick County governing bodies. The Commission is composed of representatives from the County and the City, along with representation from local industry. The Economic Development Commission is charged with fostering an efficient and cooperative effort toward economic development for the Winchester -Frederick County area. The Commission maintains an office and employs a director who is charged with the coordination of efforts to develop and implement an Economic Development Strategy for Winchester -Frederick County. Revised annually, the 1996-997 1997- 1998 strategy addresses four program areas: Existing Industry Development, Travel, Agribusiness Development, and Business Attraction. 77 CURRENT PROGRAM AREAS OF THE WINCHESTER -FREDERICK COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY W / eTM7-4 Mission: To create an effective business environment which fosters the growth and prosperity of existing industries and to communicate the availability of supporting resources. Objectives: • � �l!w_�i���lN�gl��Ui��l•�s�nww��ui.."•��.�.�__�_.-____�....a�.. _.�.---•--. a o ass%st :micreasin demand;; for local produ1.cts and services: 2. 'o=;help reduce the cost of business in order to increase profits and promote growth. 3. To assist with regulatory requirements. 4. To increase public awareness of the economic impact of the community's industrial base. 5, To assist in the maintenance of a fully trained, competent workforce. 2. Travel Mission: To develop a comprehensive plan to attract visitors, mhic r with benefit the community. Objectives: 1. To increase the number of visitors to the community. • Leisure./group travelers • Cbnventions • Business travelers 2. To increase the average length of stay for each visitor. 3. To increase expenditures made by visitors. 23 4. To improve the infrastructure which supports the travel effort. MEN : a�, � _ Mission: To create market and product awareness of the communitys diversified agribusiness industry and to add value to locally grown products through marketing and education. Objectives: 1. To expand existing markets and enter new markets (farmers, restaurant, retail). 2. To increase income (profit) for agribusiness operations by adding value to local products. Mission: To Create coii'd et a coordinated program to target and attract compatible business and industry to Winchester -Frederick County. Objectives: 1. To balance the proportion of commercial and industrial real, estate tax base for both the City and the County. 2. To create jobs, especially those which are non-competitive with existing industry needs. 3. To assist in the deveicyinen impact the quality life through increased income. 4. To assist in diversification of diversify the type of business in the economic base to provide 'stabilization and a broader' selectiort. of employment opportunities` for community citizens. 5. To increase worker skill to remain competitive as a business location. 6. To build on the. existing industry and business base by attracting new companies which provide services and products needed by the base. ''4 Employment Trends The number of employed people living in Frederick County and Winchester has grown in recent years despite fluctuations following the rise and fall of the national economy. With the exception of a slight decrease in 1991, employment within the private sector has steadily increased over the past decade by an average of 4.3% per year. This includes both the City of Winchester and Frederick County. According to the Virginia Employment Commission, total employment within the private sector was 21,617 in 1983. By 1993, the labor force had increased to 31,980. Manufacturing continues to play a major role in Frederick County's economy. Employment within manufacturing has accounted for more than 35 % of total private employment in Frederick County over the past decade, drpping;laghtlj� 10_34%;;'ui `1995: Sixteen Fifteen percent of the private labor force were was employed in retail trade in 1-993 1995, and +5* I8% were employed in service related jobs. Jobs related to finance, insurance, and real estate has experienced the greatest percent increase. In 1983, jobs within this sector accounted for only 0.6% of Frederick Co:unty's total employment. By 4993 1995, the employment in this sector increased to 3.6% 3r$=% Table 6: Employment Trends Within Private Sector (Frederick County and Winthpctpr) SECTOR 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Winchester -Frederick Total 23,848 27,631 30,244 30.098 31,980 34;:833 Agricultural Senrices 517 534 491 634 7+3 438 570 Mining 144 172 157 148 155 122 Contract Construction 1,552 2,001 2,304 1,772 1,805 2-,63-3 1;947 Manufacturing 7,906 $ 962 8,654 8,$09 9,679 10,3 f 8 10,013 Transportation and Urilir.ies 1 251 1,291 1.317 1,474 1,219-G= 1,39'' Wholesale Trade 1,770 2,1 1 1 2,617 2,222 2,244 �2 2,687 Retail Trade 5,064 6,204 7,399 7,148 7,099 8.071 7,666_ -)s Finance,Insurance,Real Frederick County Total 930 944 966 1,017 1,079 Estate 824 404 450 387 323 1:':072 Services 4,881 5,467 6,303 7,059 8,135 9,6 15.1 Contract Construction 1,013 1,262 1,447 1,122 9;335 Nonclassifiable 40 4 0 0 T-0 2,908 0 Source: Virginia Employment Commission; Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Table 7: Employment Trends Within Private Sector (Frederick County) ,SECTOR_ 1985 1987 1989 199I 1993-1-` : 1995 Frederick County Total 7,962 9,163 11,571 10,060 11,515 12541' Agricultural Services 404 450 387 323 473 472 Mining 122 144 172 157 148 15.1 Contract Construction 1,013 1,262 1,447 1,122 1,126 1;220 Manufacturing 2,473 2,715 3,607 2,908 4,127 4252 Transportation and Utilities 727 746 841 944 754 893 Wholesale Trade 848 1,034 1,356 937 857 958 Retail Trade 1,168 1,411 1,911 1,869 1,867 1,888 Finance.lnSUranceAcal Estate 150 163 434 367 418 476 Services 1,042 1,237 1,416 1,433 1,745 21231 Nonclassifiable Source: Virginia Employment Commission; Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 26 School Capacity and Enrollment for Frederick County 1997-1998 SCHOOLS: GRADE; PRACTICAL 19.97-5998 PRACTICAL LEVEL CAPACITY;` ENROLLMENT'' CAPACITY Apple Pie Ridge Elementary K-5 Armel Elementary K-5 Bass -Hoover Elementary K-5 Gainesboro Elementary K-5 Indian Hollow Elementary K-5 Middletown Elementary K-5 Redbud Run Elementary K-5 Robinson Memorial Elementary K-5 Senseny Road Elementary K-5 Stonewall Elementary K-5 TOTAL ELEMENTARY R_5 Zobert E. Aylor Middle 6-8 (Frederick County Middle James Wood Middle TOTAL MIDDLE James Wood High Sherando High TOTAL HIGH NREP TOTAL 6-8 6-8 6-8 9-12 9-12 9-12 Ages 2-21 K-12 Source: Frederick County School Board, September 1997 Please note: Six schools utilize a total of nineteen modular units as follows: Armel Elementary, 3; Gainesboro Elementary, 2; Robinson Elementary, 1; Robert E. Aylor Middle, 3; Frederick County Middle, 4; James Wood High, 6. 625 584 1 93-0. 645 591 92% 735 640 87% 260 179 69% 585 528 90% 585 592 101% 750 690 92% 318 156 49% 570 477 84% 550 421 77% 5,623 4,858 86% 965 845 754 704 78% 83% 1,000 936 940 2,810 2,394 85% 1,670 I 1,535 92% 1,550 1,398 900 3,220 2,933 910-0 56 30 54% 11,709 10,215 i 87% Source: Frederick County School Board, September 1997 Please note: Six schools utilize a total of nineteen modular units as follows: Armel Elementary, 3; Gainesboro Elementary, 2; Robinson Elementary, 1; Robert E. Aylor Middle, 3; Frederick County Middle, 4; James Wood High, 6. Route 37 West Land Use Plan 27 Recent land use decisions and development trends have drawn attention to the land within the Route 37 western by-pass area between Route 50 and Route 522. In 1996, 50 acres adjacent to Route 37 and Route 50 were rezoned for commercial use, while land adjacent to Route 37 and Amherst Street within the City of Winchester has continued to develop to accommodate the Winchester Medical Center and the Shenandoah University Pharmaceutical School. It has been indicated that build -out of the site within the City of Winchester is inevitable if development associated with these uses continues at its current rate. In 1997, Frederick County undertook a study within this area to identify the most desirable land uses and plans for the future area as a whole. The goal of this study was to balance the economic development opportunities associated with the existing development activities while limiting development potential west of Route 37, promoting the continuation of agribusiness activities, and protecting the pristine landscape of the area. A study area for the Route 37 West Land Use Plan was identified within the county which encompassed 645 acres. This area is bounded by Route 522 to the north, Route 37 to the east, the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan boundary to the south, and a definitive ridge line to the west. The predominate land use is in orchards and a portion of the study area includes a core area of the Battle of Second Winchester. Route 37 West Land Use Plan Approximately a 120 -acre area located in the southeastern portion of the 645 -acre study area has been identified as a location for potential business concentrations. It is envisioned that this area should be planned for an office park type development which complements the medical center and pharmaceutical school, while providing retail services that cater to these uses and the community within the proximity of the study area. The remaining 525 acres within this study area should remain, in its present, pristine condition, continuing the present land use of orchards while preserving the historic integrity of the battlefield, as well as potentially significant properties identified in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Future road networks are proposed for this study area which link the 120 -acre business and retail area with Route 37, Route 522, and Route 50. A system of major collector roads are necessary to promote the safe and efficient movement of traffic through this area. The Winchester Medical Center is currently working with the Virginia Department of Transportation to develop an interchange on Route 37 that will provide direct access to the medical center. This plan promotes the expansion of this interchange to provide access to the west, while linking the 120 -acre business and retail area to this interchange through the development of a major collector road. The development of a major collector road system which links the 120 -acre business and retail area with Route 522 and Route 50 is also necessary to promote an efficient north -south traffic pattern \+� Kai« rr.wr Z -Z �1` Round Hill Land �Use �Study -pArea Freder, Center I 11 J0me6 Wood "gh Apple Pie Ridge El Proposed Medical \� Center Interchange ` Shenandoah University Pharmaceutical School Windroster Medical Center � 1• t,ify of Winchester Route 37 West Land Use Plan Study Area 645 Acres Proposed Business 1 And Office Uses 37 Corridor: 118 acres Nora --------- Proposed Major Collector `Road Proposed Expansion to the SWSA \ Existing SWSA 1410 Identified Historic Site (by the Rural Landmark Survey) Traffic Signal \' 2 0 _ goo rtoo woo t•oo Frederick County PtorvJV 6 Developntnt Vhchtsttr. VIrDWe October 7, 1997 rU7bp O.q Mapping Amendments LEGEND Rescue Company Fire Company Landfill Compactor Container Regional Park OCommunity Park Airport v Cross re /"u" -tj- N__; rook 59 "'j — '\ 1 r- I --- Ot oji " W- j Hayfleia' 4n X 4O� EE • r oun r Vii` Hill VVI Chestern r 71 37 P Stag 55 anne Cp rl 6A,StZen Ity 27 4t:4 Co E Mfddletowrl 4 Warren CO ------ ----- ------ FUEDMICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Coninizinity Facilties and Services t� - - - - - - - - -- - --------------------- -------------------- 29-97 �- j. sffi Y -Radio Tower - Firt Company � - Rescue Company �1 - Landfill - Compactor i i - Container J -r-� Park J: - Airport k 1 �iJ X� \ w u r sa FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DOAARTME?Yr OF P(,-M"Cl AND DEME. -.VMS CommunityFacilities and Services CIVIL WAR SITES _"first Bartle of -Kecnsr-:)wn f ' '' ' _. r '!F1rsr Sac— ster 'ISecond Sat— ---- ester 41Enaa ement at Rut-,ierforcvs Farm—1 31Second Battle of Kernstown 5 h p � -:, i7hii7d Battle of winchesier Creek3 a t ti _eo f Cedar iiStar Fort :Dlpa:kins Mjilll -'_i .arisbrook Recoubr -.:!Igt:; corns Line -31L'I'andale Ea17'-hwOrKz/1364-•i3 Line I :41z-' -Za Trenches �: Battlefield Y, Cross ty Cy nction 50 Ga' eSbora� Gore learbr6ck-, sed 6etaN 4.. Hayfield-� Ibim 37 F. 'Star 55 Ta nne st-In.—Is City N pre w N: a! 170417 1�iddletq Co FredL % arreil Co.' PULMEINCK COUNTY. VIRGINIA Civil War Battle elds and Sites ks (As Di�thtedhv rhe NPSShe7jjjj,O,.ih" '17 . Ares studl') 97 F"c\� I. Fast Baine of 1:.rnuowV L Fust Baine of wuwbester ! I S.coad Dattle of w-webeauer and Stepomsca's Depot ) Z Emgagesamt at Rutberford's Faros t ' S. Sacnad Basle of Kerastown b, Third Same of wtocbater T. Battle of Calor Crvg!k • F'ORTIF'1C.lTIO�Sli1TZ�C.�iE\ ,S - _. Star Fort 9. Fort C aMer 10. Parma: MM BxtterT GrYsbrook Redoubt L'. I9tls Cures Lime 13- Fi-LandEs ale rthwr1uJ186:-d5 lime I 14. Zig-Zag Treocba i FF-tEDEFRICK COUN ►i, VIRLINIA CEPAR'T7 DIM OF P—UsiMra .wn oEVE' :aVEN; CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS AND Ij - L E G E N 0 sartonsville .100 ' i Brucetown ��d? 3 I Cedar Creek Sart lsiieid �1 4 Green Sorin R1143 Kernstown Battlerield Kline's Mill a !Marlboro 3 Middletown R old =^ IOnecuon to _1iStar Tannery �' r \f -=Stsohens Citv'on raaistar) 1 \ ;31Third Winchper., 9dCtle�isld 4 !white call i gT Cross GGA nctianj 5 S z �� / ao N�� L 4 0 Gore Gane born Clea rbr&6k, -M-` ruzetown 2 �r Hayfield 'kr Iblm ;r -r 13 IROun 10 37 �/ • ,,' W -pester � �, ��*=,� ML 6 �� • �'� (- as tephe ' 8 n aen � _ � � w 3 _ _ e a�C ah C�. Middietowr 7 — - r" S agJ s ml ,Fredericx_6,q" warren Co.' ts- 4oerck v�t� '�pnn!np� c Cry«�oprr�c °° Possr'ble Historic IJist3-icts l f -;����,�-n VIRGiNIr; J��RT�IE.YT QF PLSlWIIPFG .may; OEVE:�P-WE..N rv�S�tlLE HISTORIC DISICT 0 L «'hitt Hai! -'. Green spring / I Brucetow-n 4. Marlboro S. Star Tannery 6. Gravel Springs 7. Opequon t. 8. Cedar Creek Battlefield 9. Kernstown Battlefeld 10. Third Winchester Battlefield 11. 10ne's Mill 12. Bartonsville L3. Stephens Ctv (On Resister) 14. Middletown /. -;����,�-n VIRGiNIr; J��RT�IE.YT QF PLSlWIIPFG .may; OEVE:�P-WE..N rv�S�tlLE HISTORIC DISICT 0 DRAINAGE AREAS i 50 Gore 59 2 r G Oa ~ c p�, t IzIr Star Tannery j GQ_. r -- r v Shen �aO hCO/� w E "r4liddlei �' 1 S \ S� dP i er'c Co � � T Vic, c co G''• i boro 6 aarmrook =8rucetbwn i Rounp := Hii i 1snester Ooef, WRF Pa ins miii'. ° gPuan Creek teone 27` Ci Ste' n5 'RUn - w 10 Frede rck Co iN arren Co. --_ PPEDEPICXCOUNTY, 71RG1NtA� Drainage Areas D■y■a�■ ■� of PL ■ ai■� a■d Dam■to��■ � 1 (Abrams Creek i 2 1 Back Creek, �+ 3 lBuffalo Lick Run Co�L 1 4 ICadar Creek Clearbrook -Hot Run 6 1 Duncan Run I Hiatt Run c,`m ! 3 9 Redbud Run y� a tar Star 10 1 Sense'( area �aP a� (Shenandoah Tr'_buzaries 11 ISlaeov Creek / 12 ;Stephens Run 13 (Sulphur springs ? 1tIUocar Opeuon a 12 Wrights Run. o' Lime � mi N 'watershed Boundary rr� 0 a 'TrSewace Treat Y 4m r tent Plant ��w Jun i i 50 Gore 59 2 r G Oa ~ c p�, t IzIr Star Tannery j GQ_. r -- r v Shen �aO hCO/� w E "r4liddlei �' 1 S \ S� dP i er'c Co � � T Vic, c co G''• i boro 6 aarmrook =8rucetbwn i Rounp := Hii i 1snester Ooef, WRF Pa ins miii'. ° gPuan Creek teone 27` Ci Ste' n5 'RUn - w 10 Frede rck Co iN arren Co. --_ PPEDEPICXCOUNTY, 71RG1NtA� Drainage Areas D■y■a�■ ■� of PL ■ ai■� a■d Dam■to��■ � :3b ti 2. Upper opequon J. Red'ue! Run 4- Wrights Rett f S. Sensany Area 6. Staphens Run f T• Buffalo Lick Run 8. Sulpha= Springs 9. Ciearhroak-Mot Rutz J1 a ia. Hiat: Run ii. BaCt Craek �• Shenandoah *-4buzar4es 7.3. Sleepy C'aek 24. Calor Cask Staphans Run 9<" Opaquan HRT ParXsns Mi -,l __ : Lcwri .as—kj „-- /rar�o.+� Rage - c s � j 4 4 H ��rr�rsiti.n c,QUN r7, VIRGINIA OVRT? F-47 OF PLANNiNf3 AND OEVL^.PyENT DRAINAGE AREAS .Y �f+2'+ w a 4 R E N (:I 1 7 V LEGEND~ moo^ r Valley and Ridge Formations `\ Limestone / Carbonate Aqui ;•rs f Martinsburg Slurle. � on '�' RGtfti J� f r ��. CQ i2L y.� . ,r 14, f `" .�r 6 arbrook . �5 Gore} f s :r• i -\ iRc.n Hill VVI chester Z: �-- r 55 TSteehens• City - —sem,,,•--- �rauzs�� `� __ —! 9SNR@DERICK COUNTY, C117GIN1:1 �Gp■.Im..■�1C{a.Yu�,■dlSrv.l.i,WY.Y1 Geolo,�t' Formations and Aqzt fers 1D -?-97 LEGEND ww �� r. MARTINSBURG SHALE LIMESTONE i eR� — CARBONATE r AMIFERS — vALL—cy 8 RIDGE G(� FORM,2TI O N S ' nr.rnw Geoloalc VIRGINIA OEPAJR—MEN ' OF P:.:NN1Nv AN: 2EVE'=PMEN'; Forma" ,ions and Acini e,,,-) I/ 1 .1-1 \\,I /Winchester57655E ' ` I/ 1 .1-1 \\,I /Winchester57655E 51 P1.4 ULZI aid Airport Support Area 9-26-97 Use "��;il AIRPORT II SUPPORT AREA School Cross unction Toro -Clearbrook41 ld� 17 Y / t I a, Pie Ridge Elementar Elementar oover Elementarboro ElementarHollow WElementaxy Elementartown Elementar Run Elementaryon Elementar 9Sen3en Road Elementar 1D Stonewall Elementary 11 Frederick Count Middle 12 James Wood Middle 13 R.E. A ldr Middle 14 James wood High 15 Sherando Hich 16 IDowell J. Howard Voc. 17 Northwestern Re . Ed. Pro [NREP) Cross unction Toro -Clearbrook41 ld� 17 Y / t I a, t'RLDCDUN'PY.71RG1NIA Schools DrpilIM-1lse�l - of D6.ai-pwe a�d Dlup.ed 9-26-97 �) ►7 ti Roan` 2 ' .. ► —,• `� Hitl WiChester .. r 37 Star55 r 2 ,.- Tannery. �' ` Ste hens ► �. ' ,h, r y y ,1 S' r m Shanand- Ck aOahC01 � `Middletown Z _� • 6 a, ..per. �` C; ` v 2 —�- .1 m. S—.w . '^ -�.•`' ' •Frederick , - — W arren Co., t'RLDCDUN'PY.71RG1NIA Schools DrpilIM-1lse�l - of D6.ai-pwe a�d Dlup.ed 9-26-97 I - Indian Hollow Elemcn(ary Z. &Gnawtil Elementary 3- Apple Pie Ridge Eicn2enlary 4. -Sdn3gnY Road Elementary S. Bass -Hoover Elementary 6. Middletown Elementary 7. Armai Elementary 3. Gainesbom E14sumauLcy 9- Frederick COU -Y Middle 10. R -S Aylor Middle 11. I-- Wood Middle Wood High 13. Dowell J Howard Voc. 14-,'4otthwenern Regional F IS. Robinson Elementary'du, Program 16. ShcrAndo High 17. Redbud Run Elementary t -RE ERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OE"ARTMENT OF PLANNING A.N0 DEVEI-OPMENT SCHOOLS NEIGHBORHOODS ALBIN ARMEL ASH HOLLOW ' BUFFLICK N B IKERNSTOWN—� 9 MIDDLETOWN AREA 10 RED BUD RUN i 111 RELIANCE 12 REYNOLDS STORE 13 IROUND HILL 118 SUNNYSID£ 19 MIDDLETCWN 20 STEPHENS CITY 21 WHITACRE-CROSS JUNCTION- GAINESBORO 22 WHITEHALL-NAIN Star Tannery 0 t./ Net Change in Dwelling Units (1990 to 1994) 1 to 99 100 to 199 200 plus d "RStoreds 41 F Y C56 c:: Gore; 22 Hayfieid _ Round Hill Winchester � ✓. 13 w I c Z Stephens. City 16 N 2� CO S 19 9 o s Middletown, �^ _�� ` Frederick CO. `----` _ W arren CO. F HDHRICK COUNTY.9112GINIA NeiorzI�ovrhood ,)�)/�( b.P.al.r..l .I D4raiu�..d De.rluln.C.l l brook 0 r 1 �-29-97 NEIGHBORHOODS 1 Albin 2 Armel 3 Ash Hollow 4 But111ck 5 Clearbrook / Brucetown Q F redericktowae 7 Gore e Kerastown 9 Middletown Area 10 Red Bud Run 11 Reliance 12 Reynolds Store 13 Round Hill 14 Senseny 15 Shawaeeland 16 Star Tannery 17 Stephenson 18 Sunnyside 19 Middletown 20 Stephens City 21 Whitacre / Crass Junction / Gainesbora 22 White Hall / Naim Net Change in Dwelling Units (1990 TO 1994) 1 to 99 100 to 199 200 plus SC31e: I Inch = 5' miles �.� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAY: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director c yrs' . RE: Development Design Standards Discussion DATE: November 6, 1997 During the October 15, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented comments received by the development and design community pertaining to the referenced standards. It was the general consensus of the development and design community that the intent of the proposed standards were appropriate; however, additional time was needed to ensure that the language was appropriately worded. The Planning Commission felt that input from the development and design community was essential to this process, provided that revisions to the proposed language did not compromise the intent of the standards. The representatives of the development and design community felt this could be accomplished within a thirty day period and asked that the comments be reconsidered by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). Staff presented the information discussed at the Planning Commission meeting to the DRRS during their October 23, 1997 meeting. Representatives from the Industrial Parks Association (IPA), the Top of Virginia Builders Association, Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Greenway Engineering, Painter -Lewis Engineering Fort Collier Industrial Park, Stonewall Industrial Park, Airport Business Center, and Eastgate Commerce Center were in attendance and participated in the discussion. The DRRS felt that the majority of the comments made during the meeting were valid and that flexibility in design was a critical element to this process. The DRRS recommended that staff outline the comments received for the Planning Commission, redraft language for those comments that were agreed upon, and ask the commission to determine what approach should be taken for the few standards in which a consensus was not reached. Included under this agenda item is a copy of the proposed development design standards that were forwarded to the DRRS. Specific sections that were discussed have been identified and a staff recommendation has been incorporated. Staff asks that the Planning Commission determine the appropriate action for each issue during this meeting. Staff will advertise the revised language for public hearing if it is the desire of the commission. 1 1()7 Nii)rth bent Street • Winchester. Vir--inin _2601-5000