The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 10-01-97 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia OCTOBER 1, 1997 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Minutes of August 6, August 20, and September 3, 1997 ..................... A 2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................. B 3) Committee Reports ................................................. C 4) Citizen Comments ..................................... . ............ D PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #014-97 of Garris and Eva Poling for an off -premise business sign located on Route 50, West on property owned by Stephen and John Holliday, and identified with Property Identification Number 27-A-72 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (.Mr. Lawrence) .................................................... E 6) Conditional Use Permit #015-97 of Garris and Eva Poling for an off -premise business sign located on Route 50 West on property owned by Charles and Ruth Hale, and identified with Property Identification Number 27-A-58 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (Mr. Lawrence) .................................................... F 7) Rezoning Application #004-97, Eastgate a by Jasbo, Inc. to rezone 2.5927 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Industrial Light) District. This property is located at the southwest corner of Tasker Road (relocated Route 642) and Marcel Drive at the Eastgate Commerce Center. The parcel is identified with PIN 76 -A -48A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... G 2 DISCUSSION ITEM 8) Discussion of the Flex -Tech Development Concept (Mr. Lawrence) .................................................... H 9) Other O: AGENDASWCOVERSTCI0 I.AGN MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 6, 1997. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John R. Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back Creek District STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Planner II; Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II; Andrew Evans, Zoning Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 1997 AND JULY 2, 1997 Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the minutes of June 4, 1997 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine, the minutes of July 2, 1997 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1997 Page 78 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Reguiations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 07/24/97 Mtg. Mr. Wyatt reported that the primary discussion involved the Flex -Tech amendments. Mr. Wyatt said that he met with the subcommittee of the Industrial Parks Association to begin the work on this topic. He said that the staff will have a preliminary presentation for the Commission to receive input. Frederick County/Stephens City Joint Planning Committee - 07/29/97 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that this committee discussed two topics --the long-range desire of Stephens City to have their boundaries match up with their Sewer and Water Service Area; and the creation of an Overlay District for wellhead protection for the lagoons and the quarry. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Conditional Use Permit #011-97 of Robert R. Sheehan for a Cottage Occupation/ Sign Shop. This property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is located directly across from 558 Marple Road (Rt. 654) and is identified with P.I.N. 41 -A -118A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Chairman DeHaven said that he would not participate in discussion and vote on this item because of a possible conflict of interest, and he turned the chair over to Mr. Roger Thomas. Mr. Evans, Zoning Administrator, said that Mr. Sheehan received approval for CUP 4014-89 by the Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1989 to operate a sign shop on property located at 5358 Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50W) . Mr. Evans said that the applicant wishes to construct a residence and a detached garage on property located on Marple Road (Rt. 654), which would become the new location for his business. He said that the garage will accommodate the office and sign shop and Mr. Sheehan will have one employee. Mr. Evans added that the staff believed the use of the property with conditions should not effect the natural character and established pattern of development in the area. Mr. Robert Sheehan, the applicant, said that he has been operating a sign business in the area for about 20 years. Mr. Sheehan said that he plans to do the same type of work, but the new location will give him a little more room to work. Mr. Sheehan said that there is very little traffic involved with his business. Mr. Miller pointed out to the applicant that the permitted sign size for a Cottage Occupation is Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1997 Page 79 four square feet. -3 - No other areas of concern were raised by the Commission. There were no citizen comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Romme, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #011-97 of Robert R. Sheehan for a Cottage Occupation/Sign Shop with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. Activity associated with this use, including storage, shall be conducted wholly within the enclosed garage building. YES (TO APPROVE): Miller, Stone, Ours, Thomas, Romine, Wilson, Copenhaver, Light, Morris ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Note: Mr. Marker was absent.) Mr. DeHaven resumed chairing of the meeting. Rezoning Application 9003-97 for Westridge Subdivision, Section III, by Glaize Development, Inc. to rezone 9.81 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for 25 single-family detached residential lots. This property is located adjacent to the Westridge Subdivision with access from West View Lane via Middle Road (Rt. 628) within the City of Winchester, and is identified with P.I.N. 63-A-3 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers Mr. Wyatt stated that noteworthy agency comments include those from the Parks & Recreation Department and the Public Schools. He said that both of those agencies have expressed concern that the rezoning would impact regional parks facilities and future school facilities and they have recommended that impacts be addressed. Mr. Wyatt noted that the parcel is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). He said that the tract was added to the UDA by the Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1996. At that time, the main area of concern was the ability to provide services and the uncertainty of who would provide them. He said that the Commission requested that when the rezoning came before the Commission and Board, that staff report on how services would be provided, since the majority of the subdivision was within the City of Winchester. Mr. Wyatt stated that the entire 9.81 acres requested for rezoning Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1997 Page 80 -4 - is within the County and he explained who would provide the various services for the subdivision. Mr. Wyatt added that access will be by Middle Road within the City of Winchester. He said that the applicant has submitted a proffer statement which includes a generalized development plan and has proffered to provide Frederick County with a monetary contribution that is consistent with the results of the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model. He said that the applicant has proffered a 50 -foot wide future street connection to the Allen property to the north, which will provide a future connection to Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622) within the City of Winchester. Mr. Wyatt said that the applicant has also proffered to provide a consumer notification disclosure for each future property owner which will describe various services provided by each jurisdiction. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the design engineers for the project, was representing the owner, Glaize Developments, Inc. Mr. Gyurisin said that this tract adjoins the existing Westridge Subdivision, which is currently under development, and will have similar conditions as those in existing Westridge, such as paved streets, sidewalks, and lots within the 13,000-14,000 square foot range. He said that the property is in the County, however, the majority of the subdivision is located within the City. Mr. Gyurisin said that they have been working with staff towards an appropriate means of notifying property owners that there will be some differences in services. Mr. Gyurisin concluded by saying that this was an ideal location for continuation of the existing subdivision. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission believed the rezoning was consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. They were in agreement with the staff that the monetary proffer provided by the applicant compensated for the negative fiscal impact identified by the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model; that the provision of the future street would eventually provide access to Cedar Creek Grade, following the development of the Allen property; and the consumer notification disclosure would alert future property owners to the provision of services offered by the City and the County. No other areas of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #003-97 of Westridge Subdivision, Section III, by Glaize Development, Inc. to rezone 9.81 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single-family dwellings. Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82B, B2 (Business General) District. The proposed amendment will allow adult retail uses with a Conditional Use Permit. Action - Recommended Approval with Revisions Mr. Lawrence presented the proposed amendment to allow adult retail uses with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He explained that the Zoning Ordinance does not currently restrict any adult retail uses in Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1997 Page 81 -5 - the County. He said that the staff feels it is appropriate to allow these uses in a B2 Zoning District with a CUP. Mr. Lawrence reviewed the five conditions that would apply to this use. Mr. Miller said that the proposed amendment states that a CUP is required and then lists the conditions to be placed on the permit. Mr. Miller raised the point that it may lead someone to believe that no other conditions would apply or that they may be exempt from conditions that exist in other sections of the Code. It was noted that there is a section in the ordinance that deals specifically with conditions that may be placed on a conditional use permit. Commission members discussed possible wording changes or the possibility of adding a 6th condition specifically stating that other conditions may apply. Members of the Commission felt that adding the phrase, "...any conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors and with the following minimum conditions" would be appropriate. Commission members also discussed the proposed definition for adult retail. There was a concern that the phrase, "25% or more of stock" should be reduced or changed to a square footage measurement to allow for easier enforcement. The point was made that there are some legitimate video rental concerns that have a percentage of their business in adult material. Also discussed was whether the use could be outright denied in Frederick County. It was noted that this would be infringing on the rights of free enterprise and the County needed to make provisions for the use. Other questions regarding parking requirements, the 2,500 foot distance from adjoining properties, and clarification of the term, "adult" by age was also discussed. It was also suggested that the term, "multi -tenant" instead of "multi -use" be used under Condition #2. Mr. Tierney stated that under the existing ordinance, adult retail uses are neither defined or regulated, which has made it awkward for County agencies to deal with this issue. He said that there are legitimate businesses, some of which are national chains, within the County who have a portion of their trade in adult videos. He said that it was not the staffs intent to regulate or restrict those routine establishments who carry this material and tend not to generate complaints. He explained that there is also the other end of the spectrum, however, where shops deal solely in this type of material and those are the shops that the problems and complaints tend to come from. He said that the staff is attempting to create a way to differentiate the two and to get a handle on those extreme establishments. Mr. Tierney added that the CUP allows a lot of flexibility on the part of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to deal with uses on a case by case basis and it also allows them the prerogative to deny the CUP, if they feel the location is not appropriate. He felt that the wording of the amendment should not be so restrictive that it becomes unmanageable or does not allow review on a case by case basis. There were no public comments. Mr. Miller moved for approval of the amendment with clarification of the lead-in statement as previously stated and the term `multi -tenant" instead of "multi -use" buildings under Condition #2. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver. Mr. Thomas moved to propose an amendment to the motion that would change the "25 percent" to "50 square feet of floor area" under the adult retail definition. This motion was seconded by Mr. Morris, however, the amended motion was not accepted by Mr. Miller or Mrs. Copenhaver and Chairman DeHaven Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1997 Page 82 M declared Mr. Thomas's motion out of order. Mr. Miller's original motion was back on the floor and was approved by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Miller, Stone, Ours, Romine, Copenhaver, Light, Morris, DeHaven NO: Thomas, Wilson (Mr. Marker was absent.) BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82B, B2 (Business General) District to allow adult retail uses with a Conditional Use Permit as follows: Standard Industrial Allowed Uses Classification (SIC) Conditional Uses Uses permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: Adult Retail uses meeting the minimum requirements of this chapter, any conditions ---- imposed by the Board of Supervisors, and with the following minimum conditions: (1) Such uses shall be located at least 2,500 feet from the property line of existing adult retail uses, schools, churches, parks, day care facilities, and residential uses and districts. (2) Such uses shall not be permitted in shopping centers and/or multi -tenant buildings. (3) All merchandise display areas shall be limited to enclosed structures, and shall not be visible from the outside. (4) Business signs shall not exceed a maximum of 25 square feet. No wall mounted signs or window displays shall be permitted. (5) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00 AM and 11:00 PM. Definition: ADULT RETAIL - A retail establishment for which 25 percent or more of its stock in trade, as determined by floor area, is in videos, magazines, books, publications, tapes, films, or other periodicals and paraphernalia which are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing specified sexual conduct or specified anatomical areas. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1997 Page 83 -7 - Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article XVI, IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District. These amendments are intended to improve the clarity of existing requirements through the comprehensive revision of this article. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt said that the proposed amendments reflect a comprehensive revision of the Interstate Area Overlay District. He said that noteworthy revisions include the review of qualifying uses as described by the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC) in lieu of primary or accessory uses, clarification of the total number of tall signs permitted by the Overlay District, clarification regarding the permitted square footage for tall signs, requirements for greater sign setbacks if adjoining properties are residential, notification of the potential for additional setback and spacing requirements, additional requirements for sign illumination, and a description of the various Interstate 81 Exits. All other revisions are editorial in nature, intended to clarify and simplify. No areas of concern were raised by the Commission. There were no public comments. 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 comprehensive revision of Article XVI, IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District, of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning. OTHER Update on Woodbrook Village Master Development Plan Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the design engineers for the Woodbrook Village Master Development Plan project, said that approximately three weeks ago, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Woodbrook Village Plan subject to a VDOT recommended solution to the left turn traffic problem at Opequon Church Lane and U.S. Rt. 11. Mr. Maddox said that he was present to report back to the Commission the response received from VDOT's traffic signal engineers from Staunton. Mr. Maddox said that a meeting was held between VDOT, the Planning Staff, G.W. Clifford & Associates Staff, and the Woodbrook Village property owners regarding those recommendations. Mr. Maddox reported that the traffic signal engineers believed that the ultimate traffic flow generated after the Woodbrook Project was complete would not justify stopping all the traffic on U.S. Rt. 11 and allowing for a left-hand turn lane. He said the engineers stated that Route 11 was one of the most heavily traveled roads in the area and it was not their recommendation to manipulate traffic in order to handle a very small segment. He said the engineers also noted that the commercial turn lanes from the 7-11 Store would also create conflict points, if they were to implement a stop -lighted intersection on Opequon Church Lane. He said that the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1997 Page 84 -8 - solution proposed was to increase the signalization at the interchange without installing additional traffic heads. The south bound traffic coming on Valley Avenue at the Shawnee Drive light would stop before the north bound traffic. The north bound traffic will continue to move and will allow for gaps to be created in the traffic, allowing motorists on Opequon Church Lane to make a left turn. He reported that VDOT felt this was not an absolute solution, but it would help the situation. He said that it allows the motorists on Opequon Church Lane who want to turn left to perhaps have the opportunity to turn left; it doesn't guarantee it. Mr. Maddox said that discussion also took place regarding the future status of the road, in light of it becoming a service road to a historical use, which would increase the traffic flow, and possible solutions were offered He added that a written report from the Staunton District Traffic Division of VDOT has been promised to the Planning Staff by the end of the month. Members of the Commission asked if the southbound traffic from the 7-11 Store would still impede on north -bound traffic. Mr. Maddox replied that it would, but it was pointed out that the traffic turning left out of Opequon Church Lane does not have a green light right to turn left, it still has to turn left under caution conditions. The question was raised about the possibility of blocking the south -bound exit out of the 7-11 Store and bringing that out on the Opequon Church Lane. Mr. Maddox replied that the legality of doing that was discussed and they had planned to ask the 7-11 Store representatives if they would be willing to do that. Mr. James Vickers of Oak -crest Builders, the developer for the Woodbrook Village project, stated that six VDOT officials attended the meeting to discuss this matter. Mr. Vickers said that the recommendation was to control the traffic to allow a gap to permit the Opequon Church Lane motorists the opportunity to make a left-hand turn. He said that VDOT opted not to place a traffic light there because the proposed development would not generate enough traffic that would require one. Mr. Vickers spoke about the number of units proposed and the percentage of property owners who would have two vehicles. He believed the proposed project would have less traffic impact than almost any other type of RP project that could be proposed. Mr. Vickers believed that VDOT was comfortable with what was achieved as a solution to that traffic problem; even though it's not a perfect solution, it allowed the opportunity to make that left-hand turn. Chairman DeHaven said that the Planning Commission's recommendation was contingent on a signalized interchange and without that, which obviously was not going to happen, the Commission's recommendation for approval is null and void. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Jay Cook, legal counsel, if this was a significant enough change that it should be re -advertised. Mr. Cook's response was that it was not necessary to re -advertise. Chairman DeHaven said that the Planning Commission's recommendation would be clarified at their next meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1997 Page 85 ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1997 Page 86 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 August 20, 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; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District. 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. MINUTES OF JULY 16,1997 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the minutes of July 16, 1997 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 1997 Page 87 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 08/19/97 Mtg. Mr. Morris reported that the HRAB reviewed a proposed application for a conditional use permit by T. P. and Susan Goodman for outdoor social and recreational activities at the Hackman Estate. Mr. Moms said that the HRAB unanimously recommended the approval of the conditional use permit. Economic Development Commission (EDC) Mr. Romine reported that considerable effort is being put into training and workforce skills improvements for the industrial group and the EDC is also dealing with the subject of a foreign trade zone. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 08/19/97 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the SA had a routine meeting, however, they will be having a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors on September 24 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss their long-range plans, their five-year plan, and their annual report. Winchester City Planning Commission (WPC) Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the WPC met regarding property that the City has joint custody over, Westminster -Canterbury. He said that Westminster -Canterbury had submitted plans to amend the contingencies of the original development plan with regard to setbacks, building heights, etc. Mr. DiBenedetto said that the plan submitted generated an interesting public hearing, at the end of which the WPC felt the changes were too drastic and some guidance was provided as to what might be acceptable. He added that the WPC tabled the plan and it will be reviewed again during neat month's meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Proposed Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplemental Use Regulations, Section 165-23, Setback Requirements, Section 165-27, Off -Street Parking; Parking Lots, Section 165-29, Motor Vehicle Access, Section 165-30, Signs, Section 165-35, Nuisances, Section 165- 36, Landscaping, Section 165-37, Buffer and Screening Requirements, Section 165-47, Landfills, Junkyards, Trash Disposal and Inoperable Vehicles, and Section 165-48.7, Utilities; and Article XXI, Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 1997 Page 88 -3 - Definitions. These amendments will establish development design standards that are intended to enhance corridor appearance. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt presented the proposed amendments to Article IV, the Supplemental Use Regulations, and Article XXI, Definitions. Mr. Wvatt stated that the amendments are intended to enhance existing design requirements for corridor appearance within our community. He said that during the Planning Commission Retreat in February of 1997, the Board of Supervisors expressed a great deal of interest in corridor appearance and asked the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) to begin work on it. Mr. Wvatt said that the DRRS has received input from the development and design community and has worked with the Chamber of Commerce to create "intent statements" which were used to draft the proposed amendments. Mr. Wyatt showed slides as he reviewed each section of the text amendments. A question was raised regarding the three foot earth berm within the 30' setback. A Planning Commissioner wanted to know if the berm of the raised islands would gradually decrease to allow visibility. Mr. Wyatt answered that there will be visibility. Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT's site distance and visibility requirements will have to be met. Another question was raised regarding monument signs. A member of the Commission asked if the proposed 150' height allowance was consistent with most of the existing signs and whether it was enough of anincentive for using monument signs instead of pole signs. Mr. Wyatt replied that the DRRS believed that the signs currently in place in the County, which allow 150 square feet, should be the upper limit; and they felt a monument sign of that size would be very visible. Mr. Wyatt was not certain whether the 150' would provide enough incentive. No other issues were raised by the Commission. There were no public comments. Planning Commissioners congratulated the Planning Staff on the amendments. They recognized that a lot of thought and hard work had gone into writing the proposed amendments. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplemental Use Regulations, Section 165-23, Setback Requirements, Section 165-27, Off -Street Parking; Parking Lots, Section 165-29, Motor Vehicle Access, Section 165-30, Signs, Section 165-35, Nuisances, Section 165-36, Landscaping, Section 165-37, Buffer and Screening Requirements, Section 165-47, Landfills, Junkyards, Trash Disposal and Inoperable Vehicles, and Section 165-48.7 Utilities; and Article XXI, Definitions. These amendments establish development design standards intended to enhance corridor appearance. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 1997 Page 89 -4 - DISCUSSION ITEMS: Discussion of the Flex -Tech Development Concept No Action Required Mr. Lawrence said that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has begun consideration of the Flex -Tech retail/industrial land use concept, which has been encouraged by the local development community, in particular, the Winchester -Frederick County Industrial Parks Association. Mr. Lawrence said that this land use concept combines retail, warehousing, distribution, and manufacturing elements. Mr. Lawrence next presented slides which illustrated the Flex -Tech concept in northern Virginia. Mr. Lawrence stated that several of the challenges will be to decide in which district, if any, flex - tech should be pemutted, what uses would be appropriate within flex -tech, how to separate truck traffic from the vehicular traffic, and what performance standards will be necessary. One of the Commission's primary concerns, if flex -tech was permitted in existing industrial parks, was the problem of creating substantial retail traffic congestion for existing users in areas that are already partially developed. It was pointed out that this additional traffic would not have been considered during the design of the original master development plan, and major road modifications might be necessary. No one questioned that this type of environment was needed; however, it was expressed that existing flex -techs in the metropolitan areas had problems mixing large trucks and retail customers. Commission members suggested having a separate area within the industrial park for flex -tech. They believed the industrial park should be designed for flex -tech in the original concept, not put in after the industrial park had already been planned. They suggested some size requirements, such as maximum square footage or total number of occupants per building, but then allow flexibility for the park owner to work out other details. Commission members also discussed the possibility of creating a new zoning district especially for flex - tech, with minimum size requirements, buffering requirements, etc. Mr. Lawrence said that he would relay the Commission's concerns and suggestions to the DRRS for their future discussions on this topic. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 1997 Page 90 • • C: MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on September 3, 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; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Planner II; Michael T. Ruddy, PIanner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 8/28/97 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed flex -tech development. He said that the committee discussed the Planning Commission's input and other criteria. Joint Frederick County -Stephens City Planning Committee -08/26/97 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that the Joint Committee received a presentation from Bridgewater's Town Manager, Mr. Bob Holton, concerning annexation agreements and procedures for towns and counties. Mr. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Page 91 MR Thomas noted that a written summary of the meeting has been provided to Commission members. Mr. Thomas explained that Stephens City is interested in annexing some Frederick County land and the Joint Committee has been discussing a boundary adjustment for a number of years, but still has a ways to go. Mr. Thomas said that the Joint Committee will also be talking with the Rockingham County Administrator to learn what his vision was, concerning the annexation procedures. AMENDMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Chairman DeHaven asked Commission members if they would like to add the Woodbrook Village Master Development Plan as an action item under #8 on the agenda. Chairman DeHaven said that Mr. Maddox has information that he would like to share with the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Morris, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to amend their September 3, 1997 agenda to add Woodbrook Village as an action item under Number 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Conditional Use Permit #010-97 of T. P. and Susan Goodman to conduct the following activities at the Hackwood house and property: social center, catered functions, tours, meetings, outdoor recreation, etc. The property is located at 534 Redbud Road and is identified with P.I.N. 54-A-87 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Chairman DeHaven said that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this item due to a business relationship and he requested that Vice Chairman Marker chair the meeting. Mr. Evans, Zoning Administrator, stated that the applicant wishes to use the structure and property as a social center and for catered functions such as weddings, receptions, corporate retreats, recreational activities, and other social gatherings. Mr. Evans said that the applicant has stated that all functions will be handled by Encore Special Events, a small company with a staff of wedding planners, bakers, chefs, floral designers and event managers. Mr. Evans said that VDOT has reported that site distance is not obtainable to allow for the construction of a commercial entrance without major reconstruction of the roadway; and, the Health Department will need to evaluate the existing sewage disposal system, which may require the expansion of the existing system or the installation of a new system in order to provide adequate facilities. He added that a site plan will be required showing adequate parking facilities for both automobiles and buses, a commercial entrance, and other required information. Mr. Evans read the five conditions for approval recommended by the staff. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Page 92 -3 - Mr. T. P. Goodman, the owner and applicant, came forward to address VDOT and Health Department comments. Mr. Goodman said that he spoke with VDOT representatives about the entrance and he is going to move back the posts and pillars to make the entrance as wide as possible, however, he only has a 60' wide right-of-way at the entrance on Redbud Road. He said that fire company vehicles have been in and out of his lane several times and they did not seem to have a problem. Mr. Goodman added that he preferred not to have large tour buses going down his driveway because they would ruin his driveway. Regarding health issues, Mr. Goodman said that the existing 2,000 gallon septic tank will accommodate 100 people; and, if he installs 1.6 gallon toilets, it will give him an even greater capacity. Mr. Goodman said that he has enough room to expand the septic field, if at some point in the future it was needed. He said that he understood from the Health Department that he will be allowed to bring in portable toilets for large gatherings. Mr. Goodman requested that the staff's recommended condition on limiting the hours of music be removed. He said that the type of music they've had in the past consisted of a quartet on the porch. He said that there will not be any rock music and he did not believe the music would present a problem. Mr. Goodman added that the Hackwood house was certainly not a house that someone would want to live in; for example, there was no central air conditioning and it was nearly impossible to install it, and the electrical service would not handle all the electrical needs most people want. He said that he needed to find some way to make the house a viable income producer, at least enough to maintain it. Vice Chairman Marker called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Robert Carter, the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources at the Winchester Office, said that Mr. Goodman asked him to speak on this application from the point of view of historic preservation and the community's interest in heritage stewardship. Mr. Carter said that the use of Mr. Goodman's property for corporate and community gatherings and events is compatible with the historic character of the Hackwood House and its setting. He said that Mr. Goodman's proposed use will mean that an increasing number of people in this community and visitors to this community will be able to enjoy Hackwood and benefit from its historic preservation. Mr. Carter said that Mr. Goodman's sense of stewardship towards his historic properties, and he owns more than just this one, is exemplary and deserves this community's encouragement and support. Mrs. Ruth McBride, a resident of Redbud Road, came forward to speak in opposition. Mrs. McBride said that her home adjoins the Hackwood property; the entrance to Hackwood is at the corner of her front yard, just 70' from her deck. She said that the driveway runs alongside her yard for 180'. Mrs. McBride said that buses cannot make it through the Hackwood stone pillars to the driveway and the tour buses park and stay running along Redbud Road, putting out fumes and noise and creating a traffic hazard. Mrs. McBride was concerned about the increased traffic. She also presented one of the flyers produced for the Hackwood property, which stated that groups of 300-500 or more people may be served. Commission members asked Mr. Goodman if he envisioned any civil war enactments on the property that would draw more than 300 people. Mr. Goodman replied that he has only 20 acres. He said that the City and the battlefield association own all the property around him. Mr. Goodman said he understood that the City would like to sell some of the residue land to the battlefield people. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Page 93 -4 - Members of the Commission commended Mr. Goodman for his appreciation of the historic worth of the Hackwood property. The main concern of the Commission was that buses or vehicles do not park along Redbud Road and they stated that all parking needs to be on-site. They were also concerned that the sewage disposal facilities would be adequate to accommodate the numbers of people anticipated. Mr. Romine moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with only three of the conditions recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Mr. Morris. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #010-97 of T. P. and Susan Goodman to use the Hack -wood House and property as a social center and for other activities such as catered functions, tours, meetings, outdoor recreation, etc. with the following conditions: Applicant will obtain approval from all agencies, including VDOT's requirement for a commercial entrance, and comply with agency comments at all times. Any change of use or proposed expansion of the facilities shall require a new conditional use permit and amended site plan. 3. A site plan shall be submitted and approved by the County. The vote on this recommendation was: YES (TO APPROVE): Miller, Stone, Ours, Thomas, Romine, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Morris ABSTAIN: DeHaven (Mr. Wilson was absent.) Conditional Use Permit #012-97 of Michael M. Milam to operate a landscaping and garden center business. This property is located 2186 Northwestern Pike and is identified with Property Identification Number 52 -A -B in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Chairman DeHaven did not participate in discussion or voting on this application due to a business relationship and Vice -Chairman Marker conducted this portion of the meeting. Mr. Evans, Zoning Administrator, stated that landscape contracting businesses and retailing or wholesaling of nursery stock and related products are a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit. He said that the staff was recommending approval of the permit, if the applicant can provide the required commercial entrance and sewage disposal facilities per VDOT and the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Page 94 -5 - Health Department. Mr. Evans added that the use proposed should not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Michael M. Milam, the applicant and owner of Milam's Landscape and Garden Center, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. In response to a_ question of whether this was an existing business, Mr. Milam replied that it was and he has been in operation since November of 1996. In response to a question of whether Mr. Milam understood Condition 45 pertaining to signage, Mr. Milam said that he was not aware that his sign was larger than permitted by the ordinance. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Milam if he obtained a permit for the sign before he erected it and Mr. Milam said that he did not. Mr. Miller also asked if Mr. Milam was aware that he needed a permit before starting his business and Mr. Milam said that he was not aware of that. Mr. Miller reminded Mr. Milam of a prior discussion they had regarding a previous location out on Cedar Creek Grove. Mr. Milam said the Cedar Creek Grove location was in regard to a residential house and he was operating in an agricultural orchard. Mr. Milam said that apples had previously been sold there and he did not think he was in violation. Mr. Morris questioned the necessity of restating what is already in the ordinances as conditions for a Conditional Use Permit. He believed the conditions should be reserved for things that truly are exceptional items. Mr. Miller felt that the condition regarding signs was appropriate in this case because there was a problem with signs being placed in the highway right-of-way up and down the road adjacent to this business. Since Mr. Milam was currently operating illegally, the staff and Commission felt it was necessary to bring the business in compliance with VDOT and Health Department requirements as quickly as m possible and, therefore, recommended that Mr. Milacomply with those agencies within 60 days as stated in the conditions. There were no public comments. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit with all the conditions recommended by staff. This motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 4012-97 of Michael M. Milam to operate a landscaping and garden center business with the following conditions: All review agency comments must be complied with at all times. 2. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County. 3. A commercial entrance meeting VDOT requirements shall be constructed and approved within sixty (60) days of the Conditional Use Permit approval. 4. Health Department approval of a sewage disposal system shall be obtained within sixty (60) days of the conditional use permit approval. Any signage for the business must be as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Page 95 M The vote for this recommendation was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Miller, Stone, Ours, Thomas, Romine; Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Morris ABSTAI_N: DeHaven (Mr. Wilson was absent.) Conditional Use Permit #013-97 of Lisa A. Drinkwater to operate a dog kennel (without boarding). The property is located at 1571 Salem Church Road and is identified with P.I.N. 92-A-47 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Evans, Zoning Administrator, stated that dog kennels are a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit. Mr. Evans said that the applicant wishes to have the kennel for her own personal dogs and possibly, in the future, she may breed some of the dogs to sell. Mr. Evans explained that Ms. Drink -water would not need a permit just to house her own dogs; however, since she may breed dogs to sell in the future, that use falls under the definition of a kennel in the ordinance. He said that the site is isolated and well -screened, on 100+ acres, and the staff is recommending approval with conditions. Ms. Lisa A. Drink -water, the applicant, said that she owns eight dogs and she wants a small, private kennel for her own personal dogs. Ms. Drink -water said that she has no intentions of boarding other peoples' dogs. She said in the future, she may want to breed her own dogs for one or two litters a year, nothing more than that. She said that she has no problems with the conditions suggested by the staff. Commission members believed that there should be a limit on the number of dogs the applicant would be permitted to have on the site. Commission members asked Ms. Drink -water if she had any problems with the Commission imposing a 30 -dog limit on her Conditional Use Permit and she replied that number would be satisfactory. No other areas of concern were raised by the Commission. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #013-97 of Lisa A. Drink -water to operate a non -boarding dog kennel with the following conditions: All agency comments should be complied with at all times. This permit is for a kennel (non -boarding) only. Only dogs owned by the owner will be boarded in the kennel at anv time. All associated materials and supplies shall be stored inside. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Page 96 -7- 4. All requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Code of Virginia pertaining to dog kennels shall be complied with at all times. 5. All dogs/animals kept at the kennel must be controlled so as not to be a nuisance to any adjoining property by either barking or roaming free. All dogs should be placed inside a building by 9:00 p.m. There shall be a 30 -dog limit at the kennel. The Route 37 Land Use Plan. This plan is for the Route 37 West area, from Route 522 North to Route 50 West, and recommends the extension of the Sewer and Water Service Area to encompass a portion of the study area and identifies needed road connections and improvements. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Eric Lawrence, Planner II, stated that the staff has been working with the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) to develop a land use plan for the area west of Route 37, between Routes 50 and 522, consisting of approximately 645 acres. He said that the plan was discussed with the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission at a joint worksession in July. Mr. Lawrence described the two different proposed land use concentrations: a Route 522 North business corridor concentration, and a Route 37 area business/office campus use concentration. There were no public comments. No issues of concern were raised and the Commission endorsed the plan as presented. Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Route 37 West Land Use Plan for incorporation in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Miller, Stone, Ours, Thomas, Romine, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Morris ABSTAIN: Light (Mr. Wilson was absent.) Master Development Plan 4004-97 of Woodbrook Village for the development of 82 single-family zero lot line homes and 81 multiplex homes. This property is located on the south side of Opequon Church Lane at Kernstown and is identified with P.I.N. 63-A-39 and P.I.N. 63-A-40 in the Back Creek District. Action - Recommended Approval with VDOT's Plan for Traffic Control Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Page 97 -8 - Chairman DeHaven announced that it was decided by formal motion at the beginning of the meeting to adopt the Woodbrook Village Master Development Plan into the Commission's agenda as an action item. Chairman DeHaven stated that his understanding of the County Attorney's interpretation of the Commission's previous motion is that the previous motion is now null and void. He said that the Commission needs to clarify its motion to the Board of Supervisors and send it forward. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for this project, stated that VDOT, using their Staunton personnel, conducted a traffic study and analysis at this location, counting trips during a six -hour period during a typical day and using a computer-generated analysis program. He said their recommendation is that a phasing system, which is the same system worked out in the worksession with staff and VDOT, would be an adequate solution to the left turn from Route 706 onto Route 11. He said VDOT has stated that the signal is currently operating at Level D (deficient) and as a result of re -phasing the signal, it would operate at a Level C (satisfactory) creating an improved -functioning intersection. There was still concern by members of the Commission about the traffic conflict created by motorists exiting the 7-11 Store going south and motorists going out of the Church Lane going north, as far as which vehicle has the right-of-way. A question was raised as to whether other adjoining properties to Woodbrook Village may develop and direct traffic through this same intersection. Mr. Maddox said that a study on the Battlefield Park (Grim property) conducted by a consultant for the County did not recommend this intersection as an entrance. He said that no other traffic -generating uses were adjoining this proposal. A discussion ensued on traffic generation from this development and its peak hours in relation to both the church's peak hour traffic generation and Route I I's peak hour traffic generation. Mr. Maddox said that the church's peak traffic hour will exceed the peak hour generated from Woodbrook and the peak traffic hour for the church occurs during a low useage period for Route 11 traffic. It was noted that the Woodbrook Village peak hour traffic generation would occur during non -peak hour traffic flow on Route 11, Monday through Friday. Commission members asked why more consideration was not given to cul -de -sating an entrance off of Apple Valley into the development, as opposed to exiting onto Route 11, which would eliminate the problems the Commission has been debating over. Mr. Maddox replied that the owner felt that the ambiance and design of the project, the goal of which is to blend with the historic character of the area, would be negatively affected. Mr. Maddox said they preferred for the residents to access the downtown area, which is where they would normally want to go, rather than drive all the way around and still have to negotiate an unsatisfactory intersection at the corner of Apple Valley and Route 11. He said it was undesirable to require the older resident user to drive all the way out through a conventional single-family subdivision to access Apple Valley, and then tum. Members of the Commission voiced their support for the development; they felt it was a quality development, and they also commended Mr. Maddox for his efforts in answering the Commission's concerns and developing a solution. However, there were members of the Commission who did not feel the best solution was pursued. They still believed it would be better to access Apple Valley, a roadway that will be continually improved, and where there was room for a full, signalized interchange with Route 11 that would be continually improved as both commercial and residential uses dictate. These members of the Commission stated that they could not support Woodbrook's residential trips going out of the proposed intersection, regardless of how well VDOT had addressed the current problem. Mr. Thomas moved to recommend approval of the Woodbrook Village MDP as submitted and Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Page 98 M modified by VDOT's recommended plan for traffic control. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Woodbrook Village Master Development Plan #004-97 for the development of 82 single-family zero lot line homes and 81 multiplex homes on property located on the south side of Opequon Church Lane at Kernstown with VDOT's recommended plan for traffic control for the intersection at Route 706 and Route 11, by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Copenhaver, Marker, DeHaven, Romine, Thomas, Stone NO: Morris, Light, Ours, Miller (Mr. Wilson was absent.) CANCELLATION OF THE COMMISSION'S SEPTEMBER 17.1997 MEETING The staff announced that there were no pending applications or items waiting for the Commission's action. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Morris, the Commission voted unanimously to cancel their September 17, 1997 meeting. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman rreaencK l;ounty Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Page 99 BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed September 18, 1997) Application newly e 1 Y submitted. REZONINGS: Location:!I So. West comer of Tasker Road (relocated Rt. 642) & Marcel Drive at the Eastgate Commerce Center Submitted: II 08/12/97 11 PC Review: 11 10/01/97 11 BOS Review: 11 10/22/97 - tentatively scheduled Westridge, Section III (REZ #003-97) Back Creek 9.81 ac. from RA to RP for 25 s.f. detached homes Location: End of West View Lane on the west side of Middle Rd. (Rt. 628) Submitted: 07/16/97 PC Review: 08/06/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 09/10/97 - approved with proffers MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Eastgate Commerce Center (MDP #005-97) Shawnee Commercial/Industrial uses on 135.99 ac. of 235.75 ac. tract (132, B3, MI) Location: East side of Rt. 522 So. at the intersection of relocated Rt. 642, Submitted: 06/06/97 PC Review: 07/02/97 - reconunended approval BOS Review: 08/13/97 - approved Administratively A roved: Pending completion of review agency comments. Woodbrook Village (MDP #004-97) Back Creek 82 s.f. cluster & 81 multi-plex. units on 42.50 acres (RP) Location: South side of Opequon 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 SUBDIVISIONS: Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall Indust. Pk. (SUB #007-97) Gainesboro Subdivision of a 2.6584 ac. lot (Ml) Location: McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); approx. 1,000' from Tyson Dr. intersection Submitted: 07/28/97 MDP #006-93 Approved by BOS 07/14/93 Subd. Admin. Approve Pending Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97) Stonewall 75 s.f. zero lot line lots on 20.278 ac. (RP) Location: So. west corner of Baker Ln. (Rt. 1200) & Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322) Submitted: 05/16/97 MDP #001-97 Approved by BOS 04/09/97 Subd. Admin. Approve Pending Lenoir City Co. of Virginia (SUB #003-97) Gainesboro 1 Ml 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 07/28/93 Admin. Approved: Pending Wine -Fred Co. IDC (SUB) Location: Back Creek 2 Ml Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres) Southeast side of ]Development Lane Submitted: 09/08/95 MDP #003-87: Approved 07/08/87 Pending Admin. Approval Awaiting signed plats. RT&T Partnership (SUB) Back Creek 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (132) Location: Valle Pike (Rt. 11 So.) Submitted: 05/17/95 MDP #003-91 Approved 07/10/91 Pendin Admin. A royal: Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication Briarwood Estates (SUB) Stonewall 20 SF Det. Trad. Lots (RP) Location: Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 01/03/94 MDP #005-93 Approved 12/8/93 Pending Admin. A roval: I Being held at applicant's request. Abrams Point, Phase I (SUB) Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots (RP) Location: South side of Rt. 659 Submitted: 05/02/90 PC Review: 06/06/90 - recommended approval BOS Review: 06/13/90 -approved Pending Admin. Appruyal: Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat Harry Stimpson (SUB) O uon Two B2 Lots Location: Town Run Lane Submitted: 09/23/94 PC Review: 10/19/94 - recommended approval BOS Review: 10/26/94 - approved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting signed plat. SPIE PLANS: Location:II Lot 31, Stonewall Indust.Pk; So.East corner of McGhee Rd. & Lenoir Dr. intersection Submitted: II 08/21/97 Old Stone Restaurant & Truck Stop (SP #031-97) Stonewall Fuel Canopy Addition (B2) Location: 3425 Martinsburg Pike (SW comer Rt. 11 & Rt. 672) Submitted: 08/13/97 Approved: Pending Buckley's Quality Print Center (SP #030-97) Stonewall Office & Print Shop on 1.0 acres (M1) Location: Lot 2, Baker Lane Industrial Park; Baker Lane Submitted: 08/07/97 Approved: Pending Dr. 1~airman Veterinary Office (SP #029-97) ,272 sq ft Veterinary Office on 1.4962 Stonewall 4arcel (B2) ac, Location: 1092 Hopewell Road Submitted: 07/25/97 Approved: Pending Second Opequon Presbyterian Church (SP #027-97) Back Creek District 1,280 sq ft addition on 0.472 ac. site Location: 107 Miller Road Submitted: 07/24/97 Approved: Pending Mobil-Wendys Rt. 50W Conven. Center (SP #026-97) Back Creek Gas-Conven. Cntr.; 3,783 sq ft floor area; 1.072 ac. site disturbed (RA) Location: Rt. 50 West Submitted: 07/23/97 Approved: Pending Seo Property (SP #025-97) Shawnee Video Store in existing bldg.; 2.04 ac. (B1) Location: Front Royal Pike Submitted: 07/23/97 Approved: IEP Approved: 11 Ellis Self -Storage (SP #024-97) Stonewall 3 additional self -storage bldgs; 9.211 ac. parcel disturbed; (M1) Location: Intersection of Routes 761 & 664 Submitted: 07/03/97 Approved: Pendnng Roundball #6 (SP #023-97) Gainesboro 1,750 s.f. office; 80,500 s.f. warehse Phase I; 80,500 s.f. warehse Phase II; 10.0 ac. distrb. of 10.0159 ac. site (M1) Location: Tyson Drive Approved: 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) East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/I-81 Interch . Location: Submitted: 02/12/97 Approved: Pending Shenandoah Bldg. Supply (SP #056-96) Gainesboro Warehouse on 5 acres (M1) Location: 195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park) Submitted: 12/16/96 Approved: LPendfti>_ Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube Service (SP #030-96) Opequon Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive - Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2) Location: 152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store) Submitted: 07/03/96 A roved: Pending Flying J Travel Plaza (SP #026- 96) Stonewall Travel Plaza on 15 acres (B3) Location: S.W. corner of the intersection of I-81 & Rt. 669 Submitted: 05/23/96 Approved: Pending A AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP #022-96) Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a 0.916 acre parcel (RA) Location: 3548 North Frederick Pike Submitted: 05/08/96 Approved: Pending American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 acre site (132) Location: 1730 Be vine Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Penduig 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: adj. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: Being held at applicant's request. Flex Tech (SP #057-90) Stonewall MI Use on 11 At. (MI) Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Being held at applicant's request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Lisa A. Drinkwater (CUP #013-97) Opequon Kennel (RA) Location: 1571 Salem Church Rd. (Rt. 735) Submitted: 08/06/97 PC Review: 09/03/97 - recommended approval wide conditions BOS Review: 11 10/07/97 71 Michael M. Milam (CUP #012-97) Gainesboro I Landscaping Business (RA) Location: Rt. 50W, right on Round Hill Road. 1/4 mile into orchard. Submitted: 08/04/97 PC Review: 09/03/97 - recommnended approval with conditions BOS Review: 10/07197 Robert R. Sheehan (CUP #011-97) Gainesboro Cottage Occupation/ Sign Shop (RA) Location: Marpie Road Submitted: 07/03/97 PC Review: 08/06/97 - recommended approval with conditions BOS Review: 09/10/97 - approved with conditions 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 07/02/97 - recommended approval with conditions PC Review: 09/03/97 - recommended approval with conditions BOS Review: 10/07/97 James K. Powell (CUP #009-97) Opequon TP0111rice Space & Work Shop for mbing Business (RA) Location: 6931 Valle Pike Submitted: 05/19/97 PC Review: 07/02/97 - recommended approval with conditions BOS Review: .--11-09/10/97 - approved with conditions BZA VARIANCES: Tederick/Miller Investments (VAR /013-97) Stonewall 12.2' rear setbk for existing house & attached deck. Location: 110 Dots Way, Carlisle Heights Subdivision Submitted: 08/15/97 BZA Review: 09/15/97 - approved a 2.2' variance for existing residence; additional 10' variance for deck was not approved. Douglas & Donna Kern (VAR #012-97) Shawnee 23' front yd. Variance for an attached porch (RA) Location: 1505 Front Royal Pike Submitted: 08/11/97 BZA Review: Achninistratively Withdrawn 10 PC REVIEW: 10/1/97 BOS REVIEW: 10/22/97 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #014-97 Garris and Eva Poling Off -Premise Business Sign -Holliday Property- l.� 1 LOCATION: This property is located on the northern side of Route 50 West, just east of Whitacre Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 27-A-72 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT U E: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential East: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Agricultural South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Off -premise business sign (30" x 48") REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virninia Dept. of Transportation: In accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, no private advertisement sign can be placed on the State's right-of-way. Prior to erection on private property a permit may have to be applied for through our District Office in Staunton. You may do so by contacting Mr. Larry Curry at (540) 332-9098. Inspections Department: Structure shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, Use Group U (Utility) of the BOCA National Building Code. Please Garris and Eva Poling - CUP #014-97 Page 2 September 18, 1997 note Chapter 31, Section 3102.0 - Signs of BOCA, for requirements. Submit structural and foundation details with building permit application. Fire Marshal: No comments. Health Department: No objections IF the signs do not encroach upon any existing or proposed sewage disposal systems. Planning and Zoning: Background The Polings received a Conditional Use Permit in December 1996 (CUP #014-96) to operate an antique shop (G&E Antiques) at their property on Whitacre Road. Now that the site improvements at their business have been completed and the shop is open for business, the frequency of customers is not as significant as anticipated. The applicant feels that the number of customers is minimal due to the location of the business, and a sign informing the traveling public about their business would be necessary to increase business. Comments The Zoning Ordinance states that signs that advertise businesses not located on the same lot as businesses are located shall be considered `off -premise business signs'. Off -premise business signs are permitted in some zoning districts with the approval of a conditional use permit. Off -premise business signs in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District are allowed with an approved conditional use permit. Such a sign will be restricted to a maximum of 12 square feet in size and eight feet in height. Placement of the sign shall be at least 10 feet from any property line or road right-of-way. The sign must be at least 50 feet from any other business sign. The applicant has had difficulty determining the location of the Route 50 West right-of- way; the sign must be placed no closer than 10 feet from the right-of-way. Staff has met with Steve Melnikoff from the Winchester Office of the Virginia Department of Transportation and agreed that the applicant will need to provide both VDOT and the County with a survey that clearly illustrates the location of the right-of-way and the sign. Garris and Eva Poling - CUP #014-97 Page 3 September 18, 1997 Recommendation for 10-1-97 Planning Commission Meeting: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. If the business being advertised ceases operation, the sign must be removed. 2. Review agency comments must be complied with at all times. O:IAGENDASICOMMEN SIPOLIUG 1 CUP CUP ,014-97 Garris & Eva Poling 27—A-72 + Submittal Deadline -s- 7 P/C Meeting 1-7 "1 BOS Meeting L -ZL 2.7 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA .i. Apui .cant (•1•ne applicant i NAME: the owner o ADDRESS: 21A .� or TELEPHONE Xuo 77 1? 3z` -q 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties fn interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage of depth of J�00 feet and a p /5.30I feet and consists of 7• acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. Q(a,9_ on Page _ as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: USE North East South West ZONING 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) ods 4 s; -- 9. It is proposed that the following will be constructed: -P-mt 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: A NAME ADDRESS 9_7?6 PROPERTY ID#,27-/4- 3 jw NAME ,� t 1�rn o _ ADDRESS PROPERTY IDSA - 7. NAME Jn,, ,� [[1 ADDRESS PROPERTY IDO A-2 - 14 - -7&!1-t b 3 7 NAMEl3rrrr�.r��1�^►Tn r DRESS _ O PROPERTY IDO ai 7' 4-- P �a� 10 3 7 NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY IDO, _ - A NAME �,a . _ , R PROPERTY ID# .2, 2-/4 - 7-� NAME PROPERTY IDO - 7,;2 D NAME - Lc1�Lc.Iat�u _ PROPERTY ID # ;V7 _A - 55 ADDRESS a 9, t, �, &,,.4 l 725A,,_� Z 7.4o 3)7 DDR i —Sk/t.0 7. z ?- 3 7 -'S /e t i � '0z';7 lc 37 s NAME l`�iM�.. A..�. �' �'f�•�ADDRESS PROPERTY Mf -22-A Z a63 7' N` ADDRESS — r PROPERTY ID# c4 -7—.,4-5 34 NAME RES �.� -:z X37 NAME �� RESS PROPERTY ID# V �*- t6 3-7 PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS _ ADDRESS ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# Id la PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID,# NAME PROPERTY ID,# NAME PROPERTY IDS NAME PROPERTY ID# ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS FREDERID,� CO' 'N TY 65 66 618 67 y lA 64 6t \ 69 608 60C v 63 \� , 1 v 60 F 3UJ 62 \ Old n � 313 �� U �e \� Knob 314 2 ?oi o a � °n 12 13 14 C. 00�� ry O N Ory 7 ov D�Rood 207 0 3 07 207 71 0 208 Iws-a. -59q 77 Z 1 c 21 - I ' C- - ---_ 209 . 210 59S !� sp 4 209A, 5901 72A 2.11, 174 X58 , S", 60 5 59C 72C 56 ._.. _..n'-- o�..._-_p _ nR--- _ .-_- -`\.n _'— -o o_ o-� —o c -nom-� •a n -o Y- XT 76 76C 78 2 Pts. 768 76A73 / 7 74 /�o2 Pts., i/8 53A �� r2 75 1 n) a ti 52 85 83 is 94 87 ,_--._ - _-_�_ � ;•, X49 /'`�s. 95 O 12. Additional comments, if any: � LW .r% _ R _ IF r ---qAit I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors, public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board or Supervisors cr Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant --ZG11-,I Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telechone No TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: W -r +-4—V ok 0 0 �d 7> G O � O a 2 c 0 2�a N p w CD O � a o m 21,3 2G^ / and m Qn o � �l m. v v cn IQc' )0 OLD 0 N 0 o -A ; 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 00 0 0 G!S TAC -1 Ea -- �S' f:'Ao y0r 0 0 CO3)t. a fZ r 1 0 00 O ai 0 O 3 3 N N Q i 1' � v 0 N J N m (T1 3 0 0 A Q7 co 0 0 Rom �� ry 1 PC REVIEW: 10/1/97 BOS REVIEW: 10/22/97 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #015-97 Garris and Eva Poling Off -Premise Business Sign -Hale Property- LOCATION: This property is located on the northern side of Route 50 West, just west of Whitacre Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 27-A-58 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Vacant (old business) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential East: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Agricultural West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Off -premise business sign (24" x 48") REVIEW EVALUATIONS: A" Virl„inia Dept. of Transportation: In accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, no private advertisement sign can be placed on the State's right-of-way. Prior to erection on private property a permit may have to be applied for through our District Office in Staunton. You may do so by contacting Mr. Larry Cutty at (540) 332-9098. Inspections Department: Structure shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, Use Group U (Utility) ofthe BOCA National Building Code. Please Garris and Eva Poling - CUP #015-97 Page 2 September 18, 1997 note Chapter 31, Section 3102.0 - Signs of BOCA, for requirements. Submit structural and foundation details with building permit application. Fire Marshal: No comments. Health Department: No objections IF the signs do not encroach upon any existing or proposed sewage disposal systems. Planning and Zoning: Background The Polings received a Conditional Use Permit in December 1996 (CUP #014-96) to operate an antique shop (G&E Antiques) at their property on Whitacre Road. Now that the site improvements at their business have been completed and the shop is open for business, the frequency of customers is not as significant as anticipated. The applicant feels that the number of customers is minimum due to the location of the business, and a sign informing the traveling public about their business would be necessary to increase business. Comments The Zoning Ordinance states that signs that advertise businesses not located on the same lot as businesses are located shall be considered `off -premise business signs'. Off -premise business signs are permitted in some zoning districts with the approval of a conditional use permit. Off -premise business signs in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District are allowed with an approved conditional use permit. Such a sign will be restricted to a maximum of 12 square feet in size and eight feet in height. Placement of the sign shall be at least 10 feet from any property line or road right-of-way. The sign must be at least 50 feet from any other business sign. The applicant has had difficulty determining the location of the Route 50 West right-of- way; the sign must be placed no closer than 10 feet from the right-of-way. Staff has met with Steve Melnikoff from the Winchester Office of the Virginia Department of Transportation and agreed that the applicant will need to provide both VDOT and the County with a survey that clearly illustrates the location of the right-of-way and the sign. Garris and Eva Poling - CUP #015-97 Page 3 September 18, 1997 Recommendation for 10-1-97 Planning Commission Meeting: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. If the business being advertised ceases operation, the sign must be removed. 2. Review agency comments must be complied with at all times. O: AGENDAS�COMMENISPOLING 1CUP CUP #015-97 Garris & Eva Poling 2'7-A-58 Ell Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 9-S- f 7 _ fir - 1 -a-'7 /, - 2 Z '--r 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner i other) NAME: ADDRESS: Q'1 ' I;U a 1- e, Lit , TELEPHONE Q, -- 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties fn interest of the property: BLS+ JK�=A� 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage of 4Ro I feet and a depth of [4n/' feet and consists of acres. (Please b exact) 5. The property is owned lg#G3- as evidenced by deed from recorded o owner) in deed book no. on page �—, as recorded in the records of the �`Clerkk�of the C-ircuit Court, Count, of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. �rJ_A S4 Magisterial District Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: USE North S East South West S ZONING 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: PROPERTY ID# NAME LAA o ADDRESS NAME PROPERTY IDO / 1 4(!�- &0-" zo PRO ERTY ID#a-3-14 -C:E2n �. NAME ` ADDRESS 20( PROPERTY ID# NAME r.� ��d-'' 11)�• ADDRESS C� � PROPERTY ID# /; �•)i-�%� Z'2(o -3 NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME i iESS PROPERTY ID# M I X MR. W I 'M O 2 07 r 21.1 208 5� 2 10 209 loop l rc 209A J� 59U 61 m E N IV�Xf--- T � r , *in '� Fig f 11-1 K C1 A 5 1 2.36 -- 42 4 811- See 6 56 ♦ ` V 59C C\ I 1 loi 12. Additional comments, if any: ' rQ 0 r�f'i u r 4P - 'T '7 0 3 jvP-)tt �- o f 7� I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. 'R S7 - TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: PC REVIEW DATE: 10/1/97 BOS REVIEW DATE: 10/22/97 REZONING APPLICATION #004-97 EASTGATE II To Rezone 2.5927 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Industrial Light) LOCATION: This property is located at the southwest corner of Tasker Road (relocated Route 642) and Marcel Drive in the Eastgate Commerce Center. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY TD NUMBER: 76 -A -48A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Vacant ADJOWING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: (North): Zoned: RA, Rural Areas Use: Residential (South): Zoned: M1, Industrial Light Use: Eastgate Commerce Center (East): Zoned: RA, Rural Areas Use: Vacant (West): Zoned: RA, Rural Areas Use: Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter dated July 31,I 997 from Robert Childress Eastgate II - REZ #004-97 Page 2 September 17, 1997 Frederick Co. Sanitation AuthoritX: No comment. Public Works: The proposed rezoning is approved as submitted. A detailed review will be made at the time of the site plan submittal. Fire and Rescue: Will address on site plans. Stephens City Fire and Rescue Companx: The Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company has no objection to the rezoning request. County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in acceptable form. Planning & Zoninp 1) Site History This 2.5927 -acre parcel was established as a result of the right-of-way dedication for the Tasker Road (Rt. 642) realignment project. Parcel 76 -A -48A is identified in the County's real estate database as a 31.72 -acre tract, with 29.13 acres located on the north side of Tasker Road and 2.59 acres located on the south side of Tasker Road. 2) Location The property is located on the south side of Tasker Road (Rt. 642) and on the west side of Marcel Drive. The property is located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA). Staff's interpretation of the boundary adjustment to the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) in 1991 is that the property qualifies for inclusion. This adjustment was intended to include property on the south side of relocated Route 642 from the road right-of-way to the western limits of the Hudson tract. The 2.5927 -acre parcel is consistent with this action. 3) Site Suitability The 2.5927 -acre parcel does not contain environmental features as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The Rural Landmarks Survey for Frederick County does not depict this property as qualifying as a potential site of historic significance, nor does it demonstrate the location of historical structures. The property has 533' of frontage along Tasker Road which is a two-lane major collector road within an 80' right-of-way. This amount of frontage would permit the installation of Eastgate II - REZ #004-97 Page 3 September 17, I997 a commercial entrance meeting the spacing requirements from Marcel Drive. The property has the ability to be served by public water and sewer facilities owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 4) Potential Impacts a) Traffic - The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, estimates an average daily two-way trip volume of 160 vehicles per day per acre of light industrial zoning. Therefore, the proposed 2.5927 -acre parcel would generate an average of 400 vehicle trips per day. The traffic study that was conducted for the Eastgate rezoning application estimated an increase of 4,243 trips per day on Tasker Road and an increase of 38,794 trips per day on Front Royal Pike, or a 247% increase in traffic. The addition of 400 vehicle trips per day would create an additional 9% increase in traffic on these roads. b) Emergency Services - The Capital Facilities Impact Model was applied to this rezoning application assuming the development of 64,169 square feet of office space on 2.5927 acres. The model demonstrated a negative fiscal impact of $792.80 for Fire and Rescue Services. 5) Impact Statement/Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement with appropriate signatures for this rezoning application. This proffer statement calls for the provision of a 30' road efficiency buffer with landscaping along Tasker Road, future improvements to Tasker Road as warranted by VDOT, and disclosure of these requirements to future property owners. These proffers parallel the Tasker Road improvements and road efficiency buffer provisions that were approved during the Eastgate rezoning application. The applicant has also proffered a monetary contribution that is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Impact Model. Eastgate II - REZ 9004-97 Page 4 September 17, 1997 STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 1011197 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The most significant impact associated with this rezoning application is the additional traffic generation on Tasker Road. The comment provided by VDOT suggests that future improvements to Tasker Road may be necessary, including the installation of signalization at the intersection of Tasker Road and Marcel Drive. The Planning Commission should consider this impact during discussion with the applicant. 0:\AGENOAS%REZONE\F- SkMAi:-REZ COMA4ONWI:ALTH of VIRQINIA OEPARTMEN T OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COM COMMISSIONERP.O. BOX 278 JERRY A. COPP EDINBURG. VA 22824-0278 RESIDENT ENGINEER rELE i54o1984.5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 July 31, 1997 VDOT REZONING COMMENTS Location: Southwest Corner of Route 642 (new) and Eastgate Drive We have no overall objection to the rezoning of this property. The Impact Analysis Statement provided with the rezoning application did not address any specific traffic related issues. While the size of the parcel is relatively small, its development and resulting traffic could have an impact on the adjacent Route 642 (new) and Route 787 intersection. When considering the development of this parcel, remaining parcels along Route 787, and the proposed development along and north of Route 642, signalization of this intersection at a future date may be necessary. Additionally, we are currently reviewing a traffic impact analvsis for the adjacent Eastgate Commerce Center Project. The results of our review should determine what future improvements to Route 642 will be necessary. Preliminary review indicates the roadway may need to be widened to a five lane typical section. Additional right-of-way and/or roadwav efficiency buffer to be used as future right-of-wav may want to be considered on this parcel. Prior to development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailin1_7g entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic tlow data from the I.T.E. Trio Generation Manual, 31h Edition for review. Any work performed on the right-of-way must be covered under land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and will require an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Signed: 6a4_41� Trans. Permits & Subd. Specialist Supervisor RBC/ rf REZONING: #004-97 Eastgate II PIN: 76-A-48A REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff. Zoning Amendment Number ��'- Date Received j _5 7 9 BOS Hearing Date /C-22-97 PC Hearing Date � -L The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 23 Court Square, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Telephone: 540-667-2139 Address: 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 8/26/97 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Tasbo, Inc. Telephone: (540) 662-7980 Name: Teni Company & Fred L. Glaize, III Address: P.O. Box 2598, Winchester, Va. 22604 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Stephen M. Gvurisin Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verifying taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Fred L. Glaize, III Tames Bowman Tames Petry 6. Current Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Industrial (M-1) Site 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 76 -A -48A Agricultural /Undeveloped 76-A-53 Undeveloped 76 -A -53C 76-A-47 76-A-48 Undeveloped Agricultural /Undeveloped Agricultural/Undevelo end _ RA M-1 M-1 RA RA S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): fZ'0ad _ Southwest corner of relocated Va. Route 642 (Tasker -Drive) and Mar'°Ead Drive at the Eastgate Commerce Center. Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model I In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification # : 76 -A -48A Districts Magisterial District: Shawnee High School: Sherando Fire Service: Stephens Ci Middle School:Tames Wood Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Armel 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 2.5927 RA M-1 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed N/A Single Family Homes: Townhomes: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Office: Retail: Restaurant: Other: Square Footage of Proposed Uses N/A Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property Aoiningthe land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Sspervisorsmeetings. For the propose of this =iic�on,adjoining property is any proty per abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information an each adjoining property including the parcel identincarion number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commmaoner of the Revenue- is located � the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Proverty Identification Number Name William & Loretta Heflin Pronerty & 76-((A))-47 Name Wr_chts Run, L -P- 76 -((A)) -53C & 76-((A))-53 Property Name Deni Company Prooercv & 76- (A)) -48A Name Bezty J. Tinsman prnnrrrv' 76- ( (A) ) -48 Name Procem= Name Proeem' _ Name Proce"T" _ Name Procer^, _ Name Procemv = -- Name Address 113 Tadpole Lane White Post, vA 22663 2800 Shirliizgton Road, Sul 803 Arlington, vA 22206 P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, VA 22604 1804 Macedonia Church Road White Post, VA 22663 15 12 Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Gilbert W. Clifford & ,ssoc'iates, Inc. Owner(s): Date: / Date: 8/26/97 Date: `2 -1-2 Date: 9Z —N Date: Q- —3 Date: REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 76 -((A)) -48A Shawnee Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 et. sea., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application 410 -97 for the rezoning of approximately 2.5927 acres from the present RA to M-1. Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors or assigns. General Development A thirty foot (30') wide road efficiency buffer along Tasker Road landscaped with a double row of evergreen plants four feet (4') in height will be shown on the site development plan for the property and shall be installed by the owner of the property prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any use proposed for the property. A traffic study will be conducted for VDOT using VDOT procedures for the site at the time of site plan review. Improvements to Tasker Road will be constructed by the undersigned as required by VDOT regulations for the predicted traffic impacts based upon the specific proposed use. Notification of the existence of this proffer statement shall be provided to the lot purchaser at the time of lot sale. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 2.5927 acre tract, lying on the south side of of relocated VA. Route 642 Tasker Road in the Shawnee Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from existing RA to M-1 zoning district, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County, at the time a building permit is applied for and issued, the sum of Seven hundred ninety-two dollars and eighty cents ($792.80) for Fire and Rescue Emergencv Services costs. REZONING REQUEST PROFFER - Page 2 Property Identification Number 76 -((A)) -48A Shawnee Magisterial District The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTY OWNER By: i G ,� . , v Date: c� STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /?Vj da of ,14�, 1997, by � _ y My Commission expiress� Notary Public PR 0 OWNER ate:9',2-9-7 STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this oQ Ci of My Commission expires r.;?C)co , Notary Public PR By REZONING REQUEST PROFFER - Page 2 Property Identification Number 76 -((A)) -48A Shawnee Magisterial District STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit: te: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 41�—A day of 1997, by T 's _cis �i,'cG�,, - a , Taw -„ Compel My Commission exiles j a.%3 [T o0 o, Notary Public PROPERTY OWNER By: Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1997, by --------------------------------- My Commission expires Notary Public FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE Fred L. Glaize, III / JASBO, Inc. / JENI Company PROPERTY Shawnee Magisterial District July, 1997 EASTGATE II gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, i; DL 9 OWLE S& 200 North Cameron Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2139 • Fax: 540-665-0493 • gzvcliff@mnsinc.com 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Phone: 540-898-2115 - Fax: 540-898-2115 0 clifford@lbigred.com Eastgate II SUMMARY Impact Analysis Statement The following Impact Analysis Statement has been prepared for the property that consists of 2.5927 acres. The property is currently zoned Rural Area (RA) District. The requested change of zoning comes as a result of the final design and construction of relocated VA Route 642 now known as Tasker Road; and, the completion of US Route 522 South known as the Front Royal Pike. The location of these right-of-ways and crossovers changed since the initial design of Eastgate was proposed and zoned. The area to be rezoned consists of 2.5927 acres. The Impact Analysis Statement is prepared as required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. A positive fiscal impact is projected. There are no residential units proposed as part of this rezoning. The property is planned as industrial with M-1 zoning to accommodate a variety of uses. No specific uses are proposed at this time. This property is located outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Community and county -wide planning and planning policies recognize this area as suitable for development. The property that adjoins to the south and east is known as the Eastgate Commerce Center and is zoned M-1, B-2 and B-3 and is the site of Jouan, Inc. currently under construction. Analysis of environmental and physical characteristics of this property to be rezoned indicate that there is opportunity for development as envisioned. There are no known environmental features that limit development of the property. Assuming full development of the 2.5927 acres rezoned to M-1, and assuming an average development factor of 5,000 to 15,000 square feet per acre, approximately 25,000 square feet of taxable building space may be developed using an average of 10,000 square feet per acre. For example, the Jouan, Inc. facility currently under construction has approximately 5,100 square feet per acre. Revenues in the form of real property taxes, the local share of retail sales taxes, personal property taxes and business license fees are accounted for in the Capital Facilities Impact Model provided by the Frederick County Planning Department. Eastgate II Impact Analysis Statement Impacts to fire and rescue capital costs are projected by the Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model and mitigated with a like payment L V 1 J Public water and sewer are available to the property. Currently a 12" water line serves the property. Sewer service is available via a 6" force main. Natural gas and electrical service are available to the property. The rezoning fits within the guidelines of present planning policy for this currently zoned and developing commercial and industrial center. In summary: • The property is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) shown in the Comprehensive Plan. • The property has all service utilities including sewer and water. • Most adjoining land is zoned and designated for industrial development. • The property is located on an important transportation corridor. • There are no environmental or historic impacts. • There are positive fiscal impacts. GX8 7oPG 1068 Boundary Une Adjuatment 9etwaen the Lands of Fred L. Glaize. I1I. JASBO, Inc. & JENI Company Shawnee Alagisterial District Nright'snRun L.P. Frederick County. V,'rQini( fo •`• . .tom .J ��. .. APPRONWD BY Subd/visie» Admhtstrat.- ZL OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Date The above and foregoing boundary line adustment of the land of Fred L Qaize, Z JASSO, Inc. and ,.tt?VI Company and Wright's Run LA, as appears in the accompanying plat, is with the free cons t and u7 accordance With the desire f the undersigned owners, proprietors, and t steel if any. a S�-7 f Dore I� �i1lri�s NOTARY PUBLIC o Notary Public in and for the State of Vryinia, at large, do certif that Pr �-�. , �( hy ose names are signed to the foregAtan oing Owner's Certifico e, haven acknowledged the some before me in my state. .we omay) Gwen under my hand this13.1', day of 191A/nh 1997. �alr� K My commission expires ��rT�s 3J �� I hereby ctrtlfy that the land cotta e�OR SURVEYOR'S boundary ou da IFMA Q �stment is a portion of the land conveyed to Fred L Glatze, 11 JASBO, Inc. and ,.fN 1 Company by deeds dated September Si, 1990 and May 20, 1996 and a portion of the land conveyed to (tight's Run LP. by deed dated ..tdy /4, 1989, sold deeds recorded in the Office of the Ger* of the Circuit Court o/ Frederick County, Irirgrnra in Oeed Book 751 at Page 1441, in Deed Boo* 860 at Page 8JO and h Deed SocAr 719 at Page 64Z, respectively. TH OP J'r Thep P. Duane Brown, LS Pef*-*s re rosented hen:in are shown on Frederic* County Tor Aiap P. r 76i(A)J as a portion of Porrei a&1 and as Parcel 5�JC. BRQVN ; Existing Zaninq: A!- 1 and RA -• Exisfnq Use: Vacant 0ATF_- Ejj'^+Qy 21. 1997 I COVER SHEET I F1LEj "9t 2S-rw.dwq' �. I283 gibart w- dfHord do aaaariot.a, Inc - LAND PLANNERS - SURVErotiRs SE tsc aW a,. 6 2401 MD"-fhCvte(s4a) s-xns a-. `%go (S.0) r7 BK876PG1069 Soundory Adiu+ ment 7t ❑tion+ CURVE RApIUS I LENGTH I IANCENi CNORO 8EARING ( OELIA Lot 1 8.1036 Acres Original 1 40.00'1 8211.7• 40.00• 56.5r SovoS 4rE 19000 0� 0.0494 Acres Adjustment z 500.00• 37"1 ! ZIIE.95• 300..j5° S14`52`49'W j 6a02.4T 8.0541 Acres Adjusted Ciaizs 23413 Acres Original B.R.L - Branding Restriction Una et air +0.0494 Acres Adjustment 2.5927 Acres Adjusted �s FredL Clolze, )>�°� r N/F Fred L Claize. 3. 44S80. Inc. &41 o Lo r JENI Comflpany JENI � Company / % DS 751 -Pg 1441 , �`> ,0 DS C De OH 860 PQ _ 8301 DS 860-P9 930 q �` �`�+°� a 76--((A))-48Ag 2.5433 Ac. Original 8� 4�.� e % s 2.5927 Ac. Adjusted Es. Zoning: RA a Usr. Vocant Mgr, 8 no, L / �•L P "f7M � ` � 4' ` `tJ r� •° Adjusted Boundary line Q 1 ' ,�yS - All ^ t,;�// /�`' ; / / PRO?.\ JJ •�� / Lot 1 8.1038 Ac. Original / ' / PROP. 20' DEASELJa4T ``•� 8.0542 Ac. Adjusted r Eowks�Qrr MMMk SIM COMM ]Cr. This tnervot+t d swEfrti A /�/ ia mr Ma t 4 tratln osrtdkWo d aaina..wape.nt tr— amsaad was .. sdmAtad 10,— . . v Wr4ws Rut LP. DB 719-01 642 —Eastgate Drive / 76 -((A)) -5_x-5 80, j ; , 80' R f W Ex. Zoning, 1/-1 / I ,�� _��_ Ex -LA= Vocant i ROPE 30- m 1 DfWNAGE �— — — — — — 23-f3R1= — — — — i M/F Wri9fnt's Run l3. EiEW __ __ __ 1 09 719—Pq 642 Sa9'OTOZ'W _ 664.24• -- ` 76-((A))-53 Lot 2 M/F im m. 08 a7Z-P9 657 TH OFFF= Boundary Line Adjustment `lL Maize. m. JASBO. Inc. k JENI Comp&ay P. DL�E r DFM" and arid ohirict Irright'a Run LP. Fredric* Cau,tr io y 21. 1997 SCALE 1' 200' FtlEt� s. d,Hard h asa°cates, hC LANO PLANNERS - SURVE7IJRS . SHEAT a 103 zaoOF .aa (s4o) «r -nom MMMk SIM COMM ]Cr. This tnervot+t d swEfrti A /�/ ia mr Ma t 4 tratln osrtdkWo d aaina..wape.nt tr— amsaad was .. sdmAtad 10,— . . v Eastgate II PROJECT BACKGROUND Impact Analysis Statement Introduction The property requested for rezoning consists of 2.5927 acres. This rezoning is in response primarily to the major road improvements completed and the recent rezoning for the Eastgate Commerce Center. The adjoining portion of Eastgate Commerce Center is zoned MI. Eastgate Commerce Center is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of US Route 522 South and VA Route 642 and consists of approximately 250 +/- acres zoned M -1,B-3 and B-2 with a portion remaining RA. This property adjoins the Eastgate Commerce Center and is a remaining triangle of property located between relocated VA. Route 642 and the property recently rezoned M-1 for Eastgate Commerce Center. The parcel is identified as tax parcel 76 -((A)) -48A in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is currently zoned Rural Areas (RA). The property is located in the Sewer and Water Service Area designated in the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. A site evaluation indicates that this site can support industrial type uses. Location and Access The property has frontage on VA Route 642 and the recently constructed Eastgate Drive that provides access to Jouan, Inc currently under construction. Site Suitability The property to be rezoned has no site specific development limiting factors. The property to be rezoned appears well suited for all categories of uses and development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties. The primary impact concern on adjoining properties is the change of use from open, rural land to a business/ industrial setting. The impacts of the allowed industrial uses on the Eastgate 11 Impact Analysis Statement surrounding uses is reduced through distance setbacks, zoning buffers, landscaping requirements and screening regulations for outside activities. The adjoining property is primarily vacant, agricultural and industrial. DEVELOPMENT PLAN The adjoining Eastgate Commerce Center development proposes a new commercial and industrial center in the southeastern part of Frederick County. US Route 522 is an important corridor connecting with US Route 50/17 and I-81 in Frederick County Additionally, newly relocated VA Route 642 that traverses the site is an important east -west connector linking I-81 and US Route 522. The property proposed for rezoning to M-1 fills in a vacant corner area created by the recent industrial rezoning and relocation of VA Route 642. The adjoining Eastgate Commerce Center is proposed as an industrial, commercial and office center. This industrial, commercial and office center is designed to provide near term industrial sites along this important corridor while providing for future commercial growth in the same planned setting. The site is bisected by a Tasker Road that connects to US Route 522. Tasker Road replaces the old Macedonia Church Road and provides for a east -west connecting link with the Urban Development Area to the west. Two cul-de-sac roads are planned intersecting with Tasker Road to provide access to portions of the site not suitable for interparcel connections. A parallel road connects with US Route 522 serving the southeastern portion of the site providing a secondary access. These roads create different development sections which are defined by and follow the natural form and flow of the land connecting with relocated VA Route 642. The proposed 2.5927 acre area to be rezoned to M-1 complements and completes the planning and land use designs for the Eastgate Commerce Center. IMPACT ANALYSIS Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. is commissioned to evaluate the rezoning of the property project as "Eastgate II" in light of several major planning issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This document is prepared to rezone a 2.5927 acre tract from present Rural Areas (RA) to Industrial (M-1). The property is well suited for M-1 zoning considering all factors required for analysis of a site. There is a positive fiscal impact. Eastgate II Impact Analysis Statement Introduction The 2.5927 acre property is evaluated herein for M-1 zoning and is identified as tax parcel 76 -((A)) -48A in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is currently zoned Rural Areas (RA) District. Planning Analysis Site Suitability - The property to be rezoned has no site specific development limiting factors. The property appears well suited for M-1 zoning uses and development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 48 as Weikert Berks channery silt loams and Clearbrook channery loams. Prime Agricultural Soils.- The property does not contain prime agricultural soils as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Slopes - There are few identified steep slopes on this property and no steep slopes on the area to be rezoned. The topography is ideally suited for business/industrial type development. Slopes generally range from 2% to 7% on the areas to be rezoned as part of this application for zoning revisions. Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property to be rezoned. The property is generally well drained and has no low lying wet areas or wetland vegetation that indicates the presence of a wetland area. Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property that impact planned development or impact the areas considered for rezoning Flood Plain - The property is not located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plain as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map number 510063- 00200B of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Boundary map. Adjoining Properties - Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties. The primary impact concern on adjoining properties is the change of use from open, rural land to an industrial setting. Eastgate II Impact Analysis Statement Traffic Impacts Recent traffic counts and traffic study analysis are contained herein for the relocated VA Route 642 and recently reconstructed US Route 522. The traffic volume impact resulting from the proposed rezoning is estimated to add 400 trips per average weekday for a 2.5 acre light industrial use. Full development of the existing Eastgate Commerce Center yields a total of 43,037 trips per average weekday with 4,243 trips on VA Route 642 and 38,794 trips on US Route 522. Recent traffic counts on VA Route 642 show an actual count of 598 trips for a weekday total and 5,934 weekday actual trip counts on US Route 522. Attached is a summary of trip generation rates for the proposed Eastgate 11, M-1 (Industrial General ) rezoning; and, a traffic impact study recently completed for the surrounding Eastgate Commerce Center. The proposed rezoning and full development of the 2.5 acre site would result in an increase of 398 average weekday trips on VA Route 642. Assuming 80% of the trips turn east on VA Route 642 and 20% turn west on VA Route 642 the resulting impact is an increase of less than 1% at the intersection of VA Route 642 and US Route 522 for projected full development stage of the Eastgate Commerce Center. The proposed development and full development of the Eastgate Commerce Center would result in an increase of 591 trips on VA Route 642 and 5,399 trips on US Route 522. The primary increase for the Eastgate Commerce Center recent rezoning was due to retail, business, B-2 type zoning uses and the associated trips for such uses. Impacts associated with the rezoning of 2.5 acres to M-1 for the Eastgate II site are anticipated as minimal on VA Route 642 and US Route 522. Zoning setbacks, buffer distances and the shape of the property limit the buildable area on this corner, triangular shaped property therefore limiting potential trip generation based upon building size or buildable area. Any associated impacts have been mitigated with proffers to provide a road efficiency buffer along Tasker Road and to evaluate the site for traffic impacts when a specific use is proposed through site planning procedures with VDOT for possible improvements to Tasker Road. Eastgate II SM4MARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR 2.5 ACRE OF GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TRIPS PEn A%^iC 8/7/97 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: InsZitute of Transportation Engineers _:--p Generation, 5th Edition, with :eb. 1995 Ucdaze_ K --? GENE :" 2'; AVG MIN MAX NO TRIP TRIP TRIP STD OF RATE RATE RATE DEV DATA AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 51.80 5.21 159.37 32.69 17 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 6.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7-9 AM PK HR. TOTAL 7.51 1.61 34.38 6.51 18 4-6 PM PK FrR ENTER 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4-6 PM PK HIR EXIT 6.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 7.26 1.32 28.00 5.99 16 AM GEN PK :iR ENTER 7.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 AM GEN PK ;M EXIT 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 AM GEN PK F?R TOTAL 7.96 1.61 34.38 6.46 19 PM GEN PK FR ENTER 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PM GEN PK FUR EXIT 7.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PM GEN PK FFR TOTAL 8.77 1.32 31.25 6.74 18 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 8.73 4.10 43.53 7.91 6 PK HR ENT --- R 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PK HR EXIT 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PK HR TCTAL 0.96 0.44 7.06 1.55 .5 SUNDAY 2 -JAY VOL 4.42 3.29 34.12 5.50 4 PK FEZ EtilEF 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PK HR E_ --7 0.33 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0 PK HR TOT.'-- 0.64 0.47 4.71 1.05 4 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: InsZitute of Transportation Engineers _:--p Generation, 5th Edition, with :eb. 1995 Ucdaze_ K --? GENE :" 2'; TRUCKS+CARS Traffic From West on VA Rte 642 Left Right Total Time Period 7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 7'.10 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 9:00 - 9:15 9:15 9:30 9:30 - 9:45 9:45 - 10:00 10:00 10:15 10:15 - 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 10:45 - 11:00 11:00 - 11:15 11:15 - 11:30 11.30 11:45 11:45 - 12:00 12.00 - 12:15 12:15 - 12:30 1230 12:45 12:45 - 13:00 13:00 - 13:15 13:15 - 13:30 13:30 - 13:45 13:45 - 14:00 14:00 - 14:15 14:15 - 14:30 - 14:30 - 14:45 14:45 - 15.00 15:00 - 15:15 15.15 - 15:30 15:30 15.45 15:45 16.00 16.00 16:15 16:15 16.30 16.30 16.15 1 i :CO 17:00 17:15 17:15 - 17 30 17.30 17:35 17:»5 18: CO 5 19 24 3 23 26 9 22 1 31 8 15 23 10 10 20 2 9 11 4 12 ( 16 6 7 13 5 10 15 5 _ 7 12 7 2 9 4 4 8 6 11 17 2 3 5 2 6 8 3 5 a 4 3 7 3 1 1 4 2 1 8 10 5 9 1 14 7 9 16 3 7 10 0 5 5 1 2 3 2 j_j 6 3 4 1 7 3 3 1 6 6 4 1p _ 5 1 a T g _ a 1 8 1 12 5 1 4 1 9 5 4 I 9 5 4 1 4 2 1 8 1 7 4 1 1 1 5 --7T 8 1 15 14 1 4 ( 18 4 1 6 1 10 7 I 8 1 15 I - I 1C 1 I 15 1 16 5 1 17 I 2- 9 I 39 I 18 2 1 38 1 1O t 9 ri 70-: 391: 5°9 Traffic From South on US Rte 522 Left Thor Total 15 46 1 61 53 62 12 71 83 10 61 71 3 67 70 2 52 54 1 41 42 4 76 80 6 51 57 5 61 66 4 58 62 3 41 44 6 59 65 6 36 42 8 72 80 2 47 49 6 49 55 4 53 5-i 9 34 43 8 58 66 12 46 58 4 57 61 8 55 63 2 38 40 5 61 66 12 49 61 1 60 61 4 40 44 7 61 68 9 1 61 70 7 1 62 1 69 3 58 1 61 4 1 66 ( 70 8 1 52 1 60 7 49 56 14 I 57 I 71 17 1 46 6; 7 1 52 1 59 14 1 58 1-7 Z 10 1 45 1 4r- 28 528 1 136 161 51 1 151 1 20:: 60 T -1-Y2 1-1 57 1 172 1 229 1 k I 474 2750 3�1 Traffic From i'ia on US Rte 522 7hru flight Tatw 47 ( 9 1 56 59 3 1 62 54 12 66 52 7 59 44 7 51 380 38 29 2 31 40 2 42 45 10 55 32 2 34 32 2 ( 34 25 4 29 59 2 61 17 3 20- 37 5 42 42 3 ( 45 46 2 48 38 4 42 51 3 54 49 2 51 45 1 ` 46 55 5 ( 60 45 7 52 55 0 ( 55 50 1 3 53 65 3 68 46 4 1 50 67 1 ( 68 51 1 ( 52 74 2 ( 76 _ 59 ( 7 ( 56 65 ( a 71 52 ( 5 1 57 71 1 7 I 78 72 1 7 1 79 78 1 5 I 83 83 9 1 92 81 I 10 1 91 92 1 5 1 97 =- 85 119 1 10 1 1-_ 89 1 9 I 98 69 1 7 I 6 n a o 2494 216 2710 Total 141 150 180 153 141 103 89 135 127 112 105 81 143 67 130 102 110 103 107 131 120 131 120 98 125 136 117 122 129 158 144 141 136 145 140 169 173 160 184 164 271 353 338 345 r 6532 Time Period 7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 7:30 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 9:00 - 9:15 9:15 - 9:30 9:30 - 9:45 9:45 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:15 10:15 - 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 10:45 - 11:00 11:00 - 11:15 11:15 - 11:30 11:30 - 11:45 11:45 - 12:00 12:00 - 12:15 12:15 - 1230 12:30 - 12:45 12:45 - 13:00 13:00 - 13:15 13:15 - 13:20 13:30 - 13:45 13:45 - 14:00 14:00 - 14:;5 14:15 - 14:3C 14:30 - 14:45 14:45 15.00 15:15 - 15:ZC 15:30 15:45 - 16.CC 16:00 - 16.15 16.15 - 16.30 16.3C - 16.1 5 16:15 - 17 . 17:00 - 17:1 5 17:;5 - 17:30 17:30 - 17 15 17:15 - 18:CC V Rte ^ JS Rte 523 fntersec ;an -. .':�".0:V Volumes fTot2:1 IN Counted totals adjusted to hou&h -chimes Traffic From West Traffic From South on VA Rte 642 on US Rte 522 Left Right Total Left Thru Totai Time Period 7:00 - 8:00 7:15 - 8:15 7.30 - 8.30 7:45 - 8:45 8:00 = 9:00 8:15 - 9:15 8:30 - 9:30 8:45 - 9:45 9:00 - 10:00 9:15 - 10:15 -9:20 - 10:30 9:45 - 10:45 10:00 - 11:00 10:15 - 11:15 10:30 - 11:30 10:45 - 11:45 11:00 - 12:00 11:15 - 12:15 11:30 - 12:30 11:45 - 12:45 12:00 - 13:00 12:15 - 13:15 12:30 - 13:30 12:45 - 13:45 13:00 - 14:00 13:15 - 14:15 13:30 - 14:30 13:45 - 14:45 14:00 - 15:00 14:15 - 15:15 14:30 15:30 14:45 - 15:45 15:00 - 16:00 15:15 - 16.15 15:30 16:30 15.45 16:45 16.00 17:00 16:15 - 17:15 16.30 17:30 16.45 - 17:45 17:C0 18.00 25 30 29 24 22 17 20 23 21 22 19 14 13 11 12 12 14 17 17 15 11 6 6 9 14 17 18 20 19 19 17 16 18 27 22 32 30 17 18 20 17 79 70 56 46 38 38 36 26 23 24 20 24 25 17 15 17 21 27 33 30 23 18 15 13 15 15 19 20 20 20 17 14 18 18 19 26 23 34 45 76 109 Traffic From Non on US Rte 522 Total Thru Right Tcfiai N,S.F-W 100 34 252 209 29 238 715 - 8:15 85 27 251 188 Z6 214 7:30 - 8:20 70 16 221 163 16 179 7:45 - 8:45 4 29 363 15:45 - 16.-5 53 48 201 346 33 379 16.00 - 17:CZ 51 59 291 348 33 381 16.15 - 17:' E 493 63 103 390 386 32 419 16-70- 17 61� 96 149 464 383 27 420 16-45 - 17 78 7 176 196 591 367 25 397 17:CC - 18.� 286 278 23T 246 233 245 463 265 229 425 237 441 213 396 231 421 236 442 226 409 241 445 204 422 221 451 224 461 228 489 248 502 ZZZ 469 230 474 230 479 ZZH 476 232 500 234 504 243 526 251 553 2sa sz 270 574 260 247 Sn"Z 257 250 627 249 64 265 249 681 350 624 577 486 468 60 10 236 151 11 162 8:00 - 9:00 454 55 13 220 152 14 166 8:15 - 9:15 56 16 229 146 16 162 8120 - 9.20 49 19 246 149 479 16 165 8:45 - 9:45 44 18 211 134 18 152 9:00 - 10:00 46 18 219 148 10 158 9:15 - 10:15 39 19 194 133 11 144 9:30 - 10.:20 38 23 208 138 14 152 9:45 - 10:45 38 ZZ 214 155 13 168 10:00 - 11:00 28 22 204 142 13 155 10:15 - 11:15 27 20 221 163 14 177 10:30 - 11:30 29 21 183 177 12 189 10:45 - 11:45 35 27 194 184 11 195. 11:00 - 12:00 44 33 191 183 10 193 11:15 - 12:15 50 33 195 200 11 211 11:30 - 1Z30 45 32 216 194 15 209 11:45 - 12:45 34 26 196 200 13 213 12:00 - 13:00 24 19 211 205 15 220 12:15 - 13:15 21 27 203 215 13 228 12:30 - 13:30 22 20 208 216 10 226 12:45 - 13:45 29 22 210 228 11 239 13:00 - 14:00 32 24 210 Z29 9 238 13:15 - 14:15 37 21 222 238 8 246 13:30 - 14:30 40 27 224 251 11 262 13:45 - 14:45 39 26 242 249 16 265 14:00 - 15:CC 39 23 247 250 ZO 270 14:15 - 15:15 34 22 238 247 Z5 272 5fio" 14:30 - 15:20 30 22 225 260 25 285 14:45 15:45 36 33 224 273 590 24 297 15:00 16:CC 45 46 204 304 28 332 15:15 - ' 6. ' 5 48 45 204 314 31 345 c 15.20 .- 16-ZC 58 52 213 33 686 7HZ 975 1129 1310 VA Rte 64J US Rte 4 !nter;c; e:cn Peak Hour Oete!-MinatlCn Time Period 104 46 231624 277 212 31 243 7:00 - 8:00 286 278 23T 246 233 245 463 265 229 425 237 441 213 396 231 421 236 442 226 409 241 445 204 422 221 451 224 461 228 489 248 502 ZZZ 469 230 474 230 479 ZZH 476 232 500 234 504 243 526 251 553 2sa sz 270 574 260 247 Sn"Z 257 250 627 249 64 265 249 681 350 624 577 486 468 60 10 236 151 11 162 8:00 - 9:00 454 55 13 220 152 14 166 8:15 - 9:15 56 16 229 146 16 162 8120 - 9.20 49 19 246 149 479 16 165 8:45 - 9:45 44 18 211 134 18 152 9:00 - 10:00 46 18 219 148 10 158 9:15 - 10:15 39 19 194 133 11 144 9:30 - 10.:20 38 23 208 138 14 152 9:45 - 10:45 38 ZZ 214 155 13 168 10:00 - 11:00 28 22 204 142 13 155 10:15 - 11:15 27 20 221 163 14 177 10:30 - 11:30 29 21 183 177 12 189 10:45 - 11:45 35 27 194 184 11 195. 11:00 - 12:00 44 33 191 183 10 193 11:15 - 12:15 50 33 195 200 11 211 11:30 - 1Z30 45 32 216 194 15 209 11:45 - 12:45 34 26 196 200 13 213 12:00 - 13:00 24 19 211 205 15 220 12:15 - 13:15 21 27 203 215 13 228 12:30 - 13:30 22 20 208 216 10 226 12:45 - 13:45 29 22 210 228 11 239 13:00 - 14:00 32 24 210 Z29 9 238 13:15 - 14:15 37 21 222 238 8 246 13:30 - 14:30 40 27 224 251 11 262 13:45 - 14:45 39 26 242 249 16 265 14:00 - 15:CC 39 23 247 250 ZO 270 14:15 - 15:15 34 22 238 247 Z5 272 5fio" 14:30 - 15:20 30 22 225 260 25 285 14:45 15:45 36 33 224 273 590 24 297 15:00 16:CC 45 46 204 304 28 332 15:15 - ' 6. ' 5 48 45 204 314 31 345 c 15.20 .- 16-ZC 58 52 213 33 686 7HZ 975 1129 1310 VA Rte 64J US Rte 4 !nter;c; e:cn Peak Hour Oete!-MinatlCn Residential (RA) Area Full Development Full Development Proposed Increase ZZ4 2761 ' 'or Existing Toning Under Prow 'Zoning Trips.Generatea 9.55 274 i'rips Generated Trips Gert tatted 23 Development Type Average Daily Trips 19628 P.M. Peak Hour Adj. Street Industrial Panic (M-1,8-3) Area 98.6 Area 72.9 Trip Rate Average Daily Trips 62.9 6199 4587 -1611 P.M. Peak Hour Adj. Street 10.48 1033 764 -268 Retail (8-2) Area 25. Area 57-0 At FAR = 250/0 G.LFA - 272250 G.LF-k - 565844 Trip Rate Trip Rate Average Daily Trips 48.54 13215 36.9 20880 7665 P.M. Peak Hour Adj. Street 4.56 1241 3.5 1980 739 Residential (RA) Area 1122 Lot Size(ac) = 5 Lots - ZZ4 2761 Trip Rate Average Daily Trios 9.55 274 P.M. Peak Hour Adj. Street 1.01 23 TOTALS: Average Daily Trips 19628 P.M. Peak Hour Adj. Street 2297 Area 79 Lots - 15.8 151 -63 16 -7 25618 5940 2761 464 Average Daily Volume Summary Trips Per Day at Trips Per Day at Full Development Full Deveiocment Increase 7rips Etisting Trips Per Day Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Oue to neztrning VA Rte 642 1717 3652 4243 591 U.S. ,Rte 6__ 7552 Northside 16062 18559 26=7 U.S, ;Rte 81-19 Southside 17332 20135 2802 Total - 17419 37047 43037 Assuming traffic-ccurnng between 7:00 a.m. and 6.00 P.M. accounts for 7515 of daily trips Assume future trios arrive site relative to current trip distribution at the SZZt642 intersection The change in =ening .from the current layout increases the retail area by 27 acres while losing industrial area. This charge wail resuit in a !6 cercent increase in trips generated over what could have occurred uneer the existing = ning. gllce! '.v tee. s: --. - Eastgate Rezonmg ra^sic !mcac: Anaivsis Eastgate Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis Attachment #5 Trip Generation Calculation Proposed Zoning Patterns EASTGATE Prop Retail SUMARY OF TRIP GMMNTERA•TION CALCULATION FOR 565.844 �r.r_.T..P_. nF SHOPPING ENTER 2 June 1997 DRZ71 AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT WAY RATE DEVIATION- FACTOR VOLZ-1111 AVG WR=Y 2 -WAY VOL 36.90 62.21 1.00 208 7 S 1.00 28� 7- 9 AM PK HR 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 J_ K � 7-9 AM PZ EXIT 0.29 0.29 6.57 1-00 7-9 AM PK ER TOTAL 0.80 0.00 1.00 gar 4-6 PM PK SR ENTER 1.75 0.00 1.00 4-6 PM PK ER EXIT 1.75 7.3 8 1.00 197= 4-G PM PK FM TOTAL 3.50 0.00 1.00 AM GEN PK � SER 0.00 0.00 1.0 0 AM GEN PK ER EXIT 0.00 6.12 1.000 AM GEN PK FIR TOTAL 0.00 0.00 1. 0 0 PM GEN PK HR El`T R 0 0 0.00 1.00 PM GENPK EXIT 0.00 7.16 1.00 PM GEN PK Fes. TOTAL 0.00 41.91 1. 0 0 2 ' - SATURDAY 2-WAY VOL 4 8.00 0.00 1.00 - - 1== PK HR ENTER--, 2.366 0.00 1.00 1-= PK HR EXI:' 2.36 4.73 2.23 1.00 2^_ PK FUR TCTAL 20.70 9.02 1.00 1=- _ SUNDAY 2 -WAY VCL 1.0Z 0.00 1.00 _- PK HR E_iT�R 1.05 0 .00 1.00 -_ . PK HR E:i=T 2.05 1.00 1.00 -- pK HR TOT?.L _. -- frcm the follow_nc 1-j e a% `Qt=_= were ca;c-�laced ( '0 =<57 TGI P L,^. (T) = 0 . 6��Lr� (A) + 5 . 98y, -2 = 2 . :v TGLA) L;.( ') = 0.750 �n(A) + 5.15 =, Ln (T) = 0 . 589Ln (A) 4- ... _ 7-? A,1, ��; .._ Toca_. ? - 0 4° 639.- Enter, 3 7%- r== Ln (T) = 0 . 637L.-1 (A) + 3 - _ _ 4_,� Total - - (=<600 TGL.�) R-2 = 0.81, 50'� Enter (>600 TGLA) : Ln (T) = 0 .725Ln (A) + 2 _ - ?: 4-6 _.. •-- To R-2 = 0.55, 5096 Er_t=__, 50% __-- Vo'_ Lr. (T) = 0 . 62SLn (A) + 6.229, -:vav r.n (T) = 0.6351-(A) + -,.=- --I To�: - 0 . 83 , R0,49SLn(A) So% Ea�.er, 50 =-= + 6.2i---, R-2 = 0. I -TC �- „ Eastgate Ex Residential SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CP,LCULATION FOR 23 DWELLING UNITS OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 2 June 1997 DRIV =' AVERAGE. STANDARD ADJUSTMENT WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 9.55 3.66 1.00 220 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 0.19 0.00 1.00 4 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 0.55 0.00 1.00 13 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 0.74 0.90 1.00 17 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 0.66 0.00 1.00 15 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 0.35 0.00 1.00 8 4-6 PM PK FLR TOTAL 1.01 1.05 1.00 23 AM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.20 0.00 1.00 c AM GEV PK EM EXIT 0.56 0.00 1.00 13 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 0.76 0.91 1.00 1 PM G£N PK HR ENTER 0.6G 0.00 1.00 1= PM GEN PK ILR EXIT 0.36 0.00 1.00 8 PM GEN PK EM TOTAL 1.02 1.05 1.00 23 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 10.19 3.65 1.00 23 PK HR EN'iER 0.52 0.00 1.00 1= PK HR E _{y � T. 0.44 0.00 1.00 10 - PK HR TOTAL 0.96 1.00 1.00 2: S=AY 2 -WAY VOL 8.78 3.36 1.00 20Z Pk HR ZVTE2 0.44 0.00 1.00 1� PK HR 5:i-"' 0.44 0.00 1.00 PK HR TOTAL 0.89 0.96 1.00 �- NC -2: A =erc rate J_nG_catas no rate data avail able SC"y ..._ � :: 5��1C_ CL T= 7 szo zat;Cn En-=ineer: __. �ane,_t_tr Stn �c=t_Cn, W1t__ . =:. - 1995 u_ ��3 Eastgate Ex Ind Pk SVMARY OF TRIP GZ NERATION CAL=LATION FOR 98.55 ACRE OF IMUSTRIAL PARK Z June 1997 DR= TE AVERAGE. STANDARD ADJUSTMENT WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VC=4 E AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 62.90 62.21 1.00 6_ca 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 8.27 0.00 1.00 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 1.82 0.00 1.00 I-, 179 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 10.09 6.57 1.00 994- 4-6 PM PK EM ENTER 2.20 0.00 1.00 217 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 8.28 0.00 1.00 s== 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 10.48 7.38 1.00 1033 AM GEN PK H:R. ENTER 7.21 0.00 1.00 7 == AM GEN PK HR EXIT 1.08 0.00 1.00 10= AM GEN PK EM TOTAL 8.29 6.12 1.00 81. ^V PM GEN PK ER ENTER 1.82 0.00 1.00 PM GEN PK HR EXIT' 6.85 0.00 1.00 6lj PM GEN PK EFLR TOTAL 8.67 7 .16 1.00 8 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 34.23 41.91 1.00 ?^� PK HR INTER 1.51 0.00 1.00 PK EXIT 3.20 0.00 1.00 3-= PK HR TOTAL 4.71 2.23 1.00 4-== SUNDAY 2 -WAY VCL 10.11 9.0Z 1.00 .- PK KR =-N' - 0 .46 0.00 1.00 _- PK HR 7x--170.53 0.00 1.00 =- PK HR -'l^� LnL ""' T 0.99 1.23 1.00 - - Noce: A Zerc rate indicates no rate data available Source Inst -:,ace of Transportation EnaineeTs ---12 General -Lon, 5t'i Ed_:1; 4:cn, W1-� . -b . -_ 1995 UCC=- Eastgate Ex Retail Sjjro RY OF TRIP G=RA=CN CALCULATION FOR 272.25 T.u.L.A_ OF SHOPPING CEN-rk,u 2. June 1997 D=l 7_2 AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG =Y 2 -WAY VOL 48.54 0.00 1.00 13216 7-9 AM PK FIR ENTER 0.68 0.00 1.00 185 7-9 AM PK Fes. EXIT 0.40 0.00 1.00 108 7-9 AM PK IM TOTAL 1.08 0.00 1.00 293 4-6 PM PK HR =R 2.28 0.00 1.00 621 4-6 2M PK iM EXIT- 2.28 0.00 1.00 621 4-6 PM PK Int TOTAL 4.56 0.00 1.00 1242 AM GEN PK IR ENTER 0.00 0.00 1.00 a AM GEN PK U. EXIT 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PM GEST PK FEZ ENTER 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PM GEN PK FR EXIT 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 2M GEN PK FR TOTAL 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 63.01 0.00 1.00 17;5 PK HR EVER 3.09 0.00 1.00 PK HR EX=T 3.09 0.00 1.00 8 =- PK FR TOTAL 6.18 0.00 1.00 16c_ STj=Z AY 2 -ibis`'' VOL 29.89 0.00 1.00 3_27 PK H ELATE: 1.5Z 0.00 1.00 4 -- PK HR 1.58 0.00 1.00 PK HR T 0':'1L 3.10 0 . 00 1.00 8== Nct=: A ze-c r --::e indicates ne race data avai?abie _ac_s were ca i c_,__ted from tte folIow_n c AGvL _ -rYat:C_ (=<570 TGLA) . Ln (T' = 0 _ 6GSLn (A) + 5 . 985 , A;.- . -Wa' Von -I ( >=70 TC- LA) Ln (T) = 0 . 756Ln (A) + 5.15-1, R' 2 = -- 7-9 X2,1 Lr. (T) = 0.589'n(A) 2..7 R-2 = 0.49, 63%- Encar, 37%- E:c_c 4-6 =?.! ?:-. .._ Tcc_ (=<600 TGLA) . Ln(T) = 0.63'�Ln(A) + 3. R-2 = 0.31, SO%- Enc=__ , 50'� _.___ -� ?„ :'cc =(>600 TGLA) L.T' (T) = 0 . 725Ln (A) + 2.987 R-2 = 0.35, 50%- Erser, 50%- Ex; z ..-.vat• Vol. . Ln ,T; = 0 . 628Ln(A) + 6.2Z9, R -Z Rr '='ot.a? _ Ln (T) = 0.6357:1 (A) . aC- R-2 + t Ln R = 0 3,�_.�- Eastgate II Impact Analysis Statement Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems associated with this project. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future sewer service. Currently this property is served by public sewer service_ Sewage service to this site is provided by Frederick County Sanitation Authority via a 4 and 6" force main. Water Supply Impacts There are no water supply or transmission problems with this property. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future water service. Currently this property is served by public water service via an 12" water line. Water service is under the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Fire protections measures such as the installation of fire hydrants will be addressed at the site development stage. The installation of fire protection hydrants poses no problems. The installation of fire hydrants on the property will improve the fire protection means of the surrounding properties as well as the enhancing the protection of the property. The fire fighting capabilities of the fire company covering this area will be enhanced with additional fire hydrants. Drainage Facility Impacts Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal or no site drainage impacts. Industrial development in lieu of rural residential/ agricultural will increase stormwater run off. It is recommended that the increased run off would be reduced prior to discharge from the site. In lieu of the above, additional storm water detention calculations should be presented with final design which would show no adverse impacts created by the imposition of this increase storm water on the existing downstream coater course. Drainage flows generally toward Tasker Road. Predevelopment runoff rates will be maintained using recognized storm water management standards. Eastgate II Impact Analysis Statement Solid Waste Cost There are no solid waste collection and disposal impacts. Solid waste will be exported by contract hauler at no cost to the County. No additional solid waste facilities will be required to handle the waste from this property. Historic Impacts This project area has no known historic significance. There are no structures currently located on the area to be rezoned that are of historic significance. A review of the National Register, the Virginia Landmarks Register and The Frederick County rural Landmarks Survey Report indicates that there are no known historic structures on this property. Community Facilities Education - This project will generate no school children and therefore have no effect on educational cost in Frederick County. Capital cost impacts for school age children will be reduced since no school children will result with M-1 zoning. Parks and Recreation - This project would result in no capital impact on Parks and Recreational facilities. Emergency Services Cost - There are minimal additional fire, rescue or sheriff capital facilities anticipated with the zoning of the property. Additional capital costs have been mitigated with a like proffer contribution to the County. Fire protection is available from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. The planned M-1 rezoning will have all required site development standards required by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no fire protection problems associated with this property. All hydrants and fire protection measures will be installed when the property is developed. Rescue services are provided by the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad. Sheriff Department services protection will be required by this facility. Generally, routine patrols of the area should suffice for the majority of time and materials .necessary to cover this property. Environmental Impacts There are no known major environmental impacts associated with the rezoning of this property . There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including run off sediment, noise and traffic movements. Eastgate II Impact Analysis Statement These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. The effects on the down -stream impoundment and stream are minimal. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for security and business use. These should be closely controlled during planning stage to minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent residential structures and impacts on the traveling public. Other This planned zoning change would create a positive fiscal impact as compared to the existing zoning. There are no known other impacts other than the impacts identified above. Eastgate II FISCAL IMPACT Impact Analysis Statement The fiscal impacts of the Eastgate II rezoning are measured for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for the County to increase the capacity of public facilities. The amount of the impact for any rezoning and subsequent land development such as Eastgate II depends upon location and land uses. Using the rezoning impact model provided by Frederick County, the total capital cost of required new facilities generated by the Eastgate II rezoning is considered for each local governmental department for it's respective service area. In this case these departmental areas include: • Schools • Parks and Recreation • Fire and Rescue As evidenced by the model forecast, the only capital cost is new capital costs calculated for Fire and Rescue for costs not covered by county contributions boosts the amount for Fire and Rescue to $792.80. Eastgate II development when rezoned warrants a credit based upon it's overall net fiscal impact due to taxes that will be paid by the project in future years. Eastgate II generates a net positive fiscal impact. Future credits that go toward funding existing debt service are determined by the model and applies to school, fire and rescue and parks and recreation departments only. The rezoning impact model for Frederick County does not calculate positive fiscal impacts associated with non-residential land uses such as this rezoning for Eastgate II, B-1 zoning. Instead, only impacts associated with residential uses are actually shown. In the case of non-residential uses a zero ($0) value impact amount or value is shown due to the large amount of fiscal impact associated with such commercial or office (non-residential) land uses. The Frederick County impact model shows that there is no net impacts for the Eastgate II rezoning. There is a fiscal impact credit since the impact of all land uses is positive and a credit for contribution to capital costs is shown through future taxes paid to the County. Eastgate II Impact Analysis Statement The net fiscal impact credit result from the new project against capital costs that are generated by the project. The credit over a ten year period is the amount of development fees, as well as permit fees, plus, project revenues. Revenues are the sum of the following taxes and fees associated with M-1 type zoning land uses: • Real property tax • Personal property tax (estimated at $93.00 per employee) • Business license tax • Utility tax • Retail sales tax (estimated at $2.83 per square foot) • Transient tax (Motel tax) (estimated at $172.00 per room) • Meals tax ( estimated at $5.91 per square foot) The model impacts reflect a change of RA to M-1 for purposes of calculating impacts. TOTAL 5374 Si,030,23i 576,273 SO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not 5792.80 Covered ty County .Contributions MOTES. Mcdel Run Dace 7/30/97 EAW jeni C:aM any Rezcning: Assumes 64.169 sq.`t. of office on 2.5927 acres zoned M-1. `t • 1 l OUTPUT MODULE Net Credic for - Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net C2.iIS credf lmlZc Fire Department S50 S50Z SO Rescue Department 5325 Elementary Schools SO Middle Schools SO 571,520 $0 High Schcols SO Parks and Recreation IQ S4-251 U TOTAL 5374 Si,030,23i 576,273 SO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not 5792.80 Covered ty County .Contributions MOTES. Mcdel Run Dace 7/30/97 EAW jeni C:aM any Rezcning: Assumes 64.169 sq.`t. of office on 2.5927 acres zoned M-1. end IOPG1068 80un iary Line Adjustment eetFred L. Maize. 111. JASBO Inc. & JENI Company Shawnee Magisterial District and l�ril;ht's Run L.P. Frederick County, Vrginic fo Vic ity map 4. 0 APPRONIZD BY _ Subd/vision Admin/stretor Date Z L OWNER'S CERTIFICATE The above and foregoing boundary line advstment o/ the land of Fred L Glaize, JASBO, Inc. and JENI Company and Wrights Run LP., as appears in the accompanying AZ Plat. is with the free tans t and in accordance with the desiref the undersigned owners, proprietors, and t steel, if any. Date �-- �-• NOTARY PUBLIC a Notary Public in and for the State of Vrginia, at large, do certify that P/ hose names are signed to the foreg�oin�..}Owner's Certifica e, have ocknow/ed$ed the some before me in my state. �s.0- Given under my hand this__�3yh � day of 1? 1997 My commission expires 't— 31 — -yn SURVEYOR'S CERTIFIEATE V I hereby certlfy that the land contained in this boundary /ine adpstmcnt is a portion of the land conveyed to Fred L Glcze, Z JASBO, Inc. and CNI Company by deeds dated September 5, 1990 and May 20. 1996 and a portion of the land conveyed to iWight's Run LP. by deed dated ,hdy 14, 1989, said deeds recorded in the Office of the Gerin of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Wrgrnia in Deed Book 751 of Page 1441, in Deed Book 860 at Page 6JO and In Deed Book 719 at Page 54Z, respectively. TS Op ` ��...... The P. Duane Brown, LS. p))pertii3 represented herein are shown on Frederick County rax Map P. DUANE r 76((AJJ as a portion of Por>:el 484 and as Parcel 5JC. BRQVN 'x Existing Zoning: M- 1 and Rd - Exising Use: Vacant Ma 12 V?�Q�83 � DATEP - Fe"ary 21, 1997 CCR SHEET (FlLEJ '912-rr..drq' Ma 1283 99p'Ort w. dlHord k associates, Inc_ < ENG?1E7:RS - LANO PLANNERS - SURWyORS SHEET sufr4£{00, 130-c arb o --...a o.r,. t (540) SM-nis (sw1 �r-na N Mj^ BK876PG 1 069 %undnrY Adiuetment Ta6nlo n, CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT C110R0 BEARING OELTA Lot 1 8.1036 Acme Original 1 40.00' 82.83• 40.00• 55.57' SOO'05'47 E 90'OO'00' -0.0494 Acres Adjustment 2 500.00' 524.01' 288.95' 500.35' S14.52'49'W 60'02'41r 8.0542 Acres Adjusted Giaize 25433 Acres Original 8-R.L. - Building Restriction Una et 013 40.0494 Acres Adjustment 2.5927 Acres Adjusted �a I i Fred L Gloize. Z fox N/F Fred L Glaize. M JASSO.Inc po"��' �%� JENI L �8 e. do Company08 751 08 860 Pg 8301 �\0`]r 08 880 Pq 830 08 751 -Pg 1 76-((A))-4aA ti�D/h m/�� \'�'°0 76 -((A)) -48A 2.5433 Ac. Original ?� 8/ �•e� Jho 2.5927 Ac. Adjumated �:�'J°�r` EL Zoning: RA / �o %�\110, B �. E>4 Use: Vacant 4l �,� ` \•� �� _�.` Oe 19 eA �ob l B 4 ` Adjusted Boundary Line S - F = ` N45'05'47'W Y �� ^ /0 ' / Lot 1 / ; / ` �• ��` ` ♦ ��`\ 8.1036 Ac. Original / ' / / PROP. 20' 0 EASE]d1 moi/ 8.0542 Ac. AdjustedWA 1MExr Md9WB Run LP. ! r /DB 08 � 545 jEastgate Drive / 76 -((A)) -5x j 80' R/W / Ex. Zoning: u-1 EK. 30' WILITY. / a LAW Vacant � 1 SLOPE do t / t 1 DRAINAGE 25' 8RL _ I N/F wri"'s Run L.P. L — — — — — — — — L — 1 � �� D8 7 9-Pq 642 SW67.OZw -- bsa.24•— Lot 2 00 �+on � 872-Pq 657 • 76-{W)-s3o w�THBoundary Line Adjustment QP Betwo*n the Londered L. Maize,. M. ASBO.Inc. do JENI Company P. DUAtE Wri ht s and Run L.P. t1ROVN Shosrrea Yaaisittrid Ofatrk! g frsdertc* Count a OATS February21. 1997 SCALE : 1' 200 FlLEr '9125-r•'.drq Na 1283 �� W. Clifford & associates. Inc LAND PLANNERS - arSURVEYORS (� 130-e Mae oft-"* ow. SHEET 20o rr.w C� a�w tip n.+.a.rw� w 22 01 tti--Ww. +ss++• tam 2 <�1 r-a1s o iso 2m .oa (sw) "7-213a OF 2 tVtmM1• FREDERP COUNTY. 3M T1rk k"OUMNA um is a. ft d_d aalai-CA 1 2 With cwtMart• d In r110 srsntwo ws a"Lad to. am LJ, � A 4 it rr. Final Plal 0.0064 Acres Shawnee Maqisterial District Frederick County. Virginia -tel •, v+• •,.: �\ Ila ui PROJECT �A . F - AIR ,AQ •,. tA.F� ' V p�: ••• Vicinity Yap '• .r AP Frederick County Sanitation Authority Date 3 - 6 •92 Subdivision Administrator ate3" -t H7 Va.Dept. of rransportauon Date Z&.1'77 OWNER'S CERTIFICATE The above and foregoing minor subdivision of the land of Fred L Glaize, 11L ✓ASSO. inc. and .dfNl Company, as appears in the accompanying plot, is with the free -consent and in accardance with the desires of the undersigned owns,'qp6priet an trustees, if any. / Date /^ NOTARY PUBLIC �n, irr •,_ W: tUAMIS a Notary Public in and for the State of Virginia, at large, do certify that Ertl L - �,ea a:11v?.71,;rxe Wwhose names are signed to the foregoing Owner's Cert co�c, have acknowledged t- he some before me in my state. Given under my hand this -1 3 day of rnRlCl - 1997. My commission expires dOOt7, SURVEYOR'S C TIFIC E I hereby certify that the land contained in this minor subdivision is a portion of the land conveyed to Fred L Glaize, IM JASSO. Inc and .kN/ Company by deeds doted September 5. 1990 and Alay 20, 1996, said deeds recorded in the Office of the perk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 751 at page 1441 and in Deed Book 560 at page SJO, respectively. TS OFD P. Duane Brown, LS. 1 The prcpert represented herein ,s shown on Frederick County Tax Mo 76 A j as a portion of Parcel' 4$4 P. �� p (( )) Ezistinq Zoning: tRA - Exisrnq Use: Vacant UBROWN }p� _ DATE. February 20. 1997 COVER SHEET I RLE1 9125- ti.dwq NO. 1297 gibert w. dltford k associate, he t ENQNEERS - (.ANO PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET �A,0 sua�E�d` )»-c M"are. .* a+-. zoo � C_ so-... OF r....�a.a hro.. v. zzun . r. t_. v►w ___1M2 (Sw) els-ziu (sw) 667-nJC N/F Fred L Cicize. M JASBO. Inc. do JENI Company OB 751-P9 1441 OB 880-99 830 78 -((A)) -48A Nf N% /2 pOpFred L dot2�. �i pia JENI Comparry \\ ;rJ `meg �^ r OB 751-P9 1441 `\\ '� �Lp� 0 C' ' OB 880-P9 830 x117sp'pO I 78 -((A)) -4 i,• \ 6 ,p �� 2.5433 Ac. Remainder; 1 ' G ,Q9 G�fi � r PROP. 30' UTILITY, SLOPE O t aRAnuca: W009S� J J Gf� N/F Wright's Run L.P. Do 719—Pp a42 %' ` ti>�? Zs X0.0064 Ac. \ ,} 5 ro , o� , 4 Z ' jr >y ; TH NP t P. DUAhE • BRt7vN Na (zea , N/F Wright's Run LP. ^b \. \ OB 719-P9 642 +'>i \\\\ 76-((A))-53 , The Property shown herein is stw.n on Frwdeiidc County Tac Map 76((A)) as o porton of Parol 4811 Ex. Zoning RA Ev- Uec Vacont 0.0064 Acres •- Standing in the Name of Fred L. Glaize, III, JASBO, Inc. and JENI Company SxMM M"t3larid Ofstrict Frederick CzLmfy. io PATE February 20. 1997 1 SCALE 1" 50" I FR.Ebt 9125 -rte .dw9 Sibert w. difford & associctaa kw - ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET sac -c a+. amonw.. Cr+m mo rr.nr Cwv— Sre.t 2 rr.ir+....% vsvhr. z=+a srs-rr. v..a. zea OF (bel serf -015 o a so IW (bw) w7 -21a 2 MGM" REM" COUNW Wr This 1 now al .rithi was predod b rra tln d -q r 1 LJ end with — fflhmb d Ihsrslo arsumd was wirMtbd b rsaartl `� r CLEM COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAY: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I SUBJECT: Update/Discussion of the Flex -Tech Development Concept DATE: September 18, 1997 As you are aware, the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has been discussing the possible incorporation of the Flex -Tech retail/industrial land use concept within Frederick County. In order to keep the Commission informed on the DRRS' progress, staff will present a brief summary of the recent committee discussions and seek your comments and suggestions. ERL/cc U:\ERIOCOM MOMDRRS%FLE\•TECIFL\-Me,. PCD t07 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-000