Loading...
PC 05-15-96 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia MAY 15, 1996 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Minutes of April 3, 1996 Meeting ....................................... A 2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................... B 3) Committee Reports (Attachment from D.R.R. Subcommittee) .................................. C 4) Citizen Comments ................ .................................... D PUBLIC HEARING 5) An amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-37, Buffer and Screening Requirements. The proposed amendment will establish standards for common shared buffer and screening easements between adjoining properties within various zoning ' districts. (Mr. Wyatt)......................................................... E DISCUSSION ITEMS 6) Discussion of Revisions to the Land Use Plan for Round Hill (Mr. Tierney) ........................................................ F 7) Discussion on the Expansion of the Urban Development Area (Mr. Lawrence) ...................................................... G 8) Other clor', / MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on April 3, 1996. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners Dresent were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and George L. Romine, Citizen at Large. Staff present:Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; and Renee S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. CALL TO ORDER It Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7; 00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 1996 Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker, the minutes of the March 6, 1996 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT information. Chair:man DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 3/28/96 Mtg. Mr. Wyatt reported that the DRRS discussed several amendment requests by individuals and those will be brought to the Commission in the near future. Transportation Committee (CPPC) - 4/03/96 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that -the Transportation Committee discussed the significant traffic problem occurring in Fredericktowne and Fredericktowne Estates resulting from the continual development behind Fredericktowne Estates. Battlefield Task Force (BTF) - 04/01/96 Mtg. 1 Mr. Watkins reported that the BTF discussed ways to accelerate the Kernstown fund raising effort. Sanitation Authority - 03/21/96 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that all of the Sanitation Authoritys projects are underway --both the expansion of Parkins Mill and the 522 South Sewer Projects may be completed this month and the administrative building is to be completed by mid June. Q Winchester City Planning Commission Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the PIanning Commission is working on a new zoning category dealing with the preservation of single-family neighborhoods and protecting them from encroachment of apartment conversions. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Conditional Use Permit Application #002-96 of Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation to operate a licensed home for adults and adult care facility. This property is located at 549 Valley Mill Road and is identified with PIN 55-A-56 in the Stonewall District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Miller gave the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Miller said that the proposed use falls under the category of convalescent and/or nursing home and is permitted in the RP Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit. He said that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is currently working on a road improvement project for this section of Route 659, which is in the preliminary design phase. He said that VDOT has also stated that insufficient site distance currently exists at this location. Mr. Miller added that an engineered site plan will be required for the construction and conversion of this facility and all issues that are surfaced now or during the site plan process will need to be adequately addressed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued. Mr. Gregory Strosnider, Executive Director of the Rose Memorial Foundation, said that -they have been in contact with Senator Russ Potts Office and Delegate Beverly Sherwood to obtain the best guess estimate for the location of the new road and they have adjusted their building plans accordingly. Mr. Strosnider stated that they have been working with Frederick County in the submission of community development block grant funding. He said that the submission date was March 29 and they expect a response by late May, early June, putting the project out to bid late summer or early fall, and closing and construction in September. Mr. Strosnider described the facility, stating that it will be a Department of Social Services licensed adult care that would service three levels of care --residential, assisted living, and intensive assisted living. He said that the facility, located on 3.29 acres, will be fully handicapped accessible; it will consist of two separately licensed programs: a 26 -bed facility (16 of those beds are slated for assisted or intensive -assisted living) and a 12 -slot licensed adult day care; and it will have a 28 -member total staff over three shifts. Mr. Sager noted that this will be one of the most congested areas in the county once 4 all the development is finished and he asked Mr. Strosnider why this particular property was chosen. Mr. Strosnider replied that their reasons were the ownership of the property, the price, and the location. Mr. Strosnider said that they felt this was an excellent location. Chairman DeHaven called for citizens wishing to speak in favor of the application and the following persons came forward: Mrs. Janet Bixby, was present on behalf of Shenandoah Valley Independent Living Center. Mrs. Bixby said that from their daily experience, they felt there was a real need for this type of facility in the community. She said that she could not imagine why the facility, which really amounts to an apartment complex in terms of effects on its surroundings, would be a problem. She felt this could be a good facility and is very much needed, judging by the number of phone calls their agency gets on a regular basis for housing. Mrs. Jeanne Brown, with her handicapped son, Mark, said that they have been residents of Frederick County for the past eight years. Mrs. Brown said that her son graduated from N -Rep School in June of 1995 and from then until now he has no where to go and nothing to do because of a lack of facilities. Mrs. Brown said that she was fully in favor of the day program --her son would be able to go during the day while she works and would be given the therapies that he needs daily. She said that her son, and other children like him, are in wheelchairs, are non-verbal, they are not a threat to the community, they are not aggressive or destructive. Mrs. Brown said that she has been a resident of Brentwood Terrace for the past seven years and she was sure that most of her neighbors who were present did not even know where she lived. She said that her son does not go onto the neighbors property, has not done anything to any of them. She felt the neighbors did not want this facility at this location because of the stigma. Mrs. Cheryl Farris, with her handicapped daughter, Katlyn, said that her daughter is currently attending school full-time at N -Rep and they have been residents of Frederick County for four years. Mrs. Farris stated that since age 2, Katlyn has actively participated in regular activities with peers, professionals, therapists, and teachers. She explained that she can not physically provide all the stimulation, care, and recreation alone, even with the help of her family. Mrs. Farris said that without adequate day care for her daughter, she can not even think about returning to work or continuing her education. She said that if something happened to her husband and she was forced to seek employment, Katlyn would not have anywhere to go. Mr. Murry Smith, President of the Northwestern Workshop, said that Northwestern Workshop serves about 100 disabled people in the community and has been in service for the past 25 years. Mr. Smith said that as proud as they are of this facility, they can not provide a residential facility. He said that the community needs an overall plan that covers 24-hour a day care. Mr. Smith said that the Northwestern Workshop is in favor of this application. Ms. Mooney Christovich, President of the Arc of Northern Shenandoah Valley, formerly the Association for Retarded Citizens, emphasized the humane aspect of this issue. Ms. 5 Christovich stated that we are talking about people first and secondly, people with physical and mental disabilities with special needs. She said that 30 years ago, people with disabilities in our community were sent away to institutions for care and services. She said that society no longer values that method of treatment and has moved towards providing services and care within the community. Ms. Christovich urged the community not to take a step backward, but to step forward and grant the proposed conditional use permit to enrich the lives of the people with disabilities in our community. Chairman DeHaven read a letter that the Commission received from Mr. Dave Holliday, area developer, in support of the proposed conditional use permit. Chairman DeHaven called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the conditional use permit and the following persons came forward: Mr. Ralph Simmons, resident at 466 Valley Mill Road, said that he was in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Simmons said that according to records he reviewed at the - Planning Department, there would be 80+ people dropped off at the facility and in approximately three years, there will be in the neighborhood of 150 clients and employees at this location. He said that no one knows when the roads will be built. Mr. Simmons said that he was the Vice President of the Brentwood Terrace Homeowners Association and was speaking for the majority of the homeowners and they were in opposition to the request. Mr. Simmons submitted a petition containing approximately 100 signatures of opposition. Mr. Simmons continued, stating that an operation of this size constitutes a commercial enterprise and the proposed size is totally out of proportion for this residential area. Mr. Simmons said that the location is surrounded by a narrow, two-lane country road that is already over -burdened by traffic. He said that allowing extra traffic on this road will almost certainly mean grid -lock for the homeowners attempting to get out of their driveways, it will jeopardize the safety of area children, and it would be detrimental to the clients of the proposed establishment. Mr. Simmons said that no one has described this operation or the proposed clients to the residents of the community. Mr. Simmons wanted to know what constituted "hard to serve" clients. He wanted to know if there would be people from prisons or half -way homes, or if the clients would be pedophiles or from detox. He asked if the facility could this turn into drug rehab center, a half- way house, or home for sex offenders. Mr. Simmons asked if there would be a fence. Mr. Simmons said that traffic will be generated from vendors and deliveries of food, medical supplies, linens, and other miscellaneous supplies. Mr. Simmons asked for a show of hands from people in the audience who were opposed to the conditional use permit (approximately 20-30 people). Mr. Simmons also felt that a public hearing sign was not timely posted on the property. Mr. Tierney said that the numbers that Mr. Simmons was quoting were projected cumulative totals over a three-year period. Mr. Tierney said that this will be a 26 -bed facility 2 with 12 day-care slots and will not exceed that. Mr. Miller said that a public hearing sign is required to be posted seven days prior to the public hearing. He said that the sign in question was posted 12 days before the public hearing. Mrs. Patricia Dkrcangelis, adjoining property owner, said that as an educator, she is fully aware of the humanity of the issue and agreed the children needed some place to go. Mrs. DArcangelis said that this site was not appropriate for several reasons: 1) the proposed facility did not belong in an area of single-family residential homes; 2) traffic generated from the facility will aggravate an already difficult situation; 3) 28 staff members means 112 trips per day; 4) community sentiment is strongly in opposition; 5) the 7,000 square foot building was too large for this small area; and 6) the proposed site is steeply sloped. Mr. Danny Strosnider, resident at 470 Valley Mill Road, was in opposition to the request. He stated that Mr. Jerry Copp of VDOT told him that the location for the new proposed road had not yet been decided. Mr. Strosnider felt the relocation of the road would cause changes to this whole area. Mr. Strosnider said that the client geographic service area for this establishment will be Lord Fairfax Planning District 7, which was a large service area. Mr. Strosnider also questioned the term "protected environment" and said that this type of facility will be taking persons that regular nursing homes will not. Mr. Strosnider felt this was a needed service, but not in an area of single family residences. He stated that the traffic was terrible in this area now and will probably get worse. Mrs. Merk Koon, neighborhood resident, said that she has highway stakes in her front yard for the proposed road and now she has this proposed facility crowding her from the side. Mrs. Koon said that she is in this location because the county and the city condemned her 80 -acre farm for a sewage plant. She felt she was being crowded out and she was opposed to the facility. Mrs. Grant High, 106 Windcrest Circle, said that she sympathized with the parents of the handicapped children. Mrs. High stated that this facility would be a business and this was not the proper location for a business because it was so confined. Mrs. Pamela Gillum, 100 Woodys Place, Carlisle Estates, said that she can see the front of the proposed building from her back deck. Mrs. Gillum said that this property is not safe for handicapped children because it is very steeply sloped and the road is dangerously curved. She said that the road was so dangerous that cars have ended up in neighbors yards. Mrs. Tracy Finn, 118 Pioneer Road, was concerned about the traffic on Route 656. Mrs. Finn said that the traffic on Route 656 was horrible due to all the construction traffic, the additional Redbud traffic, and the additional school buses. She said that motorists use her subdivision street to make a "B-line" for the 7-11 Store. Mrs. Finn said that her street is unsafe 7 for her children to play. Mrs. Finn felt this facility would add to the traffic problem. Mrs. Finn presented a petition of opposition with signatures from residents in the area. Mrs. Moreen Schray, resident at Brentwood Terrace, said that she moved here from Manassas to get away from the congestion. Mrs. Schray said that she drives this road every day and almost everyday she has to stop just around the bend to allow another car to go through. She said there is a lot of speeding. Mrs. Pam Crank, resident at Brentwood Terrace, said that she can also vouch for how dangerous this curve is. She said that the property in question is along this curve and the property is very steep. Mrs. Crank felt there was not enough yard available for the children attending the facility to be out outside and be safe. She felt that a better location could be found where the children could be outside and be safe. Mr. Dennis Collins, 102 Woodys Place, said that it was his yard that an automobile crashed through. Mr. Collins said that he called VDOT to see about getting a guardrail put in and the state said that they did not have the money to do it. Mr. Collins said that Harrington Smith, Shawnee District Board Representative, was out to this area checking water run off and saw what remained of his lamp post laying over. Mr. Collins said that if there is snow and ice, motorists cannot make it up the hill and many times the road is overcome with water. He said that this road has been on the Road Improvement Plan for six years, but he does not foresee it being improved any time soon. He said that the roads are not only curved, they are very narrow. Mr. Collins felt this facility would negatively effect his property value. He felt it should be located in a B2 Zoning District. Mr. Mark Boczar, 457 Valley Mill Road, said that this was not an appropriate location for a commercial enterprise. Mr. Boczar said that this road is already overloaded with traffic. Mr. Boczar felt this facility would generate more traffic through employees, deliveries, and'services. Mr. Boczar didnt see how they could accommodate the building plus all the parking on this lot. Mr. Joseph A. DArcangelis, adjoining property owner, said that this was not the proper location for a commercial enterprise. Mr. YArcangelis said that he has been waiting for seven years for road improvements and nothing has been done. He said that he phoned the Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation and never had his call returned. He felt this type of growth was harmful and haphazard and will have an adverse effect on the surrounding area. He said it was not consistent with community sentiment. Mr. Jeff Sikes, resident of Brentwood Terrance, felt the road could not handle any additional traffic. He also felt his property value would be negatively impacted. He felt this was not the proper location for this facility. Dr. Thomas Keenan, Frederick County property owner, came forward to speak in .3 favor of the conditional use permit. Dr. Keenan said that he can understand the emotional issues of both sides, the parents of the handicapped children and the residents of the area; however, he felt that what he was seeing was fear. He stated that the neighborhood residents were hiding behind the issues of traffic, property values, etc. Dr. Keenan said that the additional 50-200 homes that have been approved for this area on this same road will add much more traffic to the area than this facility. He felt that as a community, we should be asking whether or not we "need" this facility. He said that many philosophers have said that the "measure of a community is how they handle those who are less fortunate than they are." Dr. Keenan felt the question was not whether these kids and this home was good for the community, but was the community good enough for this home? Mrs. Lynn Collins, 100 Woodys Place, said that she did not want this in her back yard, not because of their disabilities, but because of the road. Mrs. Collins said that it was her lamp post that was destroyed when a car went off the road. She said that if her children would have been in the yard at the time, they would have been hurt. She said that in severe weather, her street becomes a parking lot because motorist cannot get through. Mr. Donald P. Joy, 476 Valley Mill Road, said that he was originally from New York City and he knows what a traffic problem is. Mr. Joy said that this road is very treacherous and he often fears for his safety. He said that the speed limit sign was changed from 45 to 35, but that has not solved the speeding problem. Mr. Jeff Gillum, 100 Woodys Place, said that both he and his neighbors have put up fences to block out the view of the road. Mr. Gillum said that he is originally from Reston, Virginia and moved from there because the houses were so close together. Mr. Gillum said that his house is directly below the Dove home. Mr. Gillum was concerned about the size of the proposed structure and said that he will be looking at a 9,000 square foot building from his back yard. He was concerned about a decrease in property values, that the road was in terrible condition and needed improvements, and he felt the only reason the applicant wanted this property was because of the money issue. Mr. Gillum said that the house has been for sale for three years and they got a good deal on it. Mr. and Mrs. Mark Todd, 106 Woodys Place, were concerned about the traffic, especially after the new school was built. Mr. Todd stated that the traffic on this road is very bad, the entrance is on a blind curve and a steep slope, and in severe weather, the road is impassible. He said there will be no yard available for the children to be outside. He added that the proposed facility is located on a steep hill. Mr. David Cotrell, 107 VanBuren Place, said that the proposed structure is located at the top of a steep hill. Mrs. Debbie Overstreet, resident of the Stonewall District and mother of a handicapped child, came forward to speak in favor of the request. Mrs. Overstreet said that the Z children attending this facility will be supervised at all times; she wanted to know if the parents in the neighborhood could say the same about their children. Mrs. Overstreet said that if the traffic and roads have been such a problem, wily hadnt the neighborhood residents come before the Commission before this. She wanted to know why it took the Rose Memorial Foundations proposal to bring everyone in. Mrs. Overstreet asked the neighbors to help the parents of the handicapped children find a suitable location, if they did not want this facility located here. Mr. Robert Landis, 104 Woodys Place, stated that this was not the proper place for the proposed facility. Mr. Landis said that traffic is an issue and safety is an issue. He stated said that this was a business trying to locate in a residential area, purely for profit. Mr. Landis said that the neighborhood residents do not want this facility at this location. Chairman DeHaven closed the public portion of the meeting and gave Mr. Strosnider an opportunity to address the concerns raised. Mr. Strosnider said that Rose Memorial Foundation is a 501C3 charity corporation. He said that there is no profit and this is not a "for profit" business. Mr. Strosnider said that the reason these people do not have a place to live is because they do not have money and have to depend on community non-profit organizations to develop housing for them. Mr. Strosnider said that he still felt this was a good location and that they could meet any of the requirements as far as the site plan was concerned. In answer to a commissioners question on the total number of residents at any given time, Mr. Strosnider replied there would be 12 day care people, 26 residential persons, for a total of 38 served, plus supervising staff. It was noted by one of the Planning Commissioners that as recently as one month ago the Hill Valley proposal was brought in for consideration at this same location. It was noted that the proposal was for 54 single family detached cluster homes and none of these people were present to talk about traffic problems. It was stated that 54 homes would create a lot more traffic than this proposed facility. Other members of the Commission felt that the traffic generated by this conditional use permit would certainly be less than if this property was converted into an additional housing development through a master development plan. Commissioners were very sensitive to the traffic problems, the road problems, and the growth problems in this community. They also felt that this facility provided a needed service and were unconvinced that this was not a good location for this proposal. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #002-96 of the Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, Inc. for a Center for Community Living and Adult Care Facility with the following conditions: 1. A site plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. lul 2. The applicant must comply with all requirements of the State and County Codes pertaining to convalescent/nursing homes at all times. 3. Any expansion of this facility will require a revised site plan and a revised Conditional Use Permit. 4. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed and continually complied with at all times. An amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-23, Setback Requirements. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt presented an amendment to establish survey standards for primary and accessory structures, greater than 500 square feet, which are located five feet or less from building setback lines. Mr. Wyatt said that the need for this was identified by the Building Official and the County Engineer to mitigate the number of structures that encroach upon the minimum required building setback line. He explained that the proposed amendment incorporates Ianguage for a mid -construction survey requirement and removes the requirement for an as -built survey; this was suggested at the last Planning Commission meeting to address construction problems prior to structure completion. Mr. Wyatt said that the proposed amendment was also modified to remove the requirement for a certification letter by the surveyor of record. He explained that this was removed at the request of the Top of Virginia Builders Association and has been modified to require the surveyor of record to complete and seal information on the building permit. Chairman DeHaven inquired if the Inspections Department was satisfied with using this data to check uncovered decks and porches at this phase of construction. Mr. John Trenary, Building Official for Frederick County, replied that the inspectors could determine from the survey at that point the dimensions on the deck to be in compliance at the final stage of inspection. There were no citizen comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Ellington and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously 11 recommend approval of the Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-23, Setback Requirements, as follows: Article IV - Supplementary Use Regulations 165-23 Setback Requirements H. Structural location survey requirements. The following survey requirements shall be complete for applicable primary and accessory structures within all zoning districts as described: (1) A surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia shall establish the location of any primary structure that is located five (5) feet or less from any minimum setback requirement. (2) A surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia shall establish the location of any accessory structure occupying an area of 500 square feet or greater that is located five (5) feet or less from any minimum setback requirement. (3) Information verifying the footing location stakeout shall be provided on the appropriate Building Permit Setback Report prior to the approval of the footing for the primary or accessory structure. The surveyor of record shall complete the required information on the Building Permit Setback Report and affix his or her professional seal containing the appropriate signature and date. The Building Permit Setback Report containing the required footing location stakeout surveyor information shall be posted on the construction site with the building permit hard card at the time of the footing inspection. (4) A mid -construction survey shall be prepared by the surveyor of record once the rough framing of the primary or accessory structure is in place. Rough framing shall include the foundation, all exterior walls and the roof system. The surveyor of record shall complete the required information on the Building Permit Setback Report and affix his or her professional seal containing the appropriate signature and date. The Building Permit Setback Report containing the required mid - construction surveyor information shall be provided to the Department of Engineering and Inspections prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit by the Building Official. 12 Parting Comments by Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director Mr. Watkins said that he was leaving Frederick County to become the Manager of Comprehensive and Physical Planning for the City of Aurora, Colorado. Mr. Watkins gave some parting thoughts to the Commission about the future of Frederick County. Commission Retires to Executive Session Upon motion made by Mr. Ellington, seconded by Mr. Marker, and passed unanimously, the Commission retired to Executive Session under Section 2.1-344.(x)(8) of the Code of Virginia, Discussion or consideration of honorary degrees or special awards. Commission Returns to Regular Session Upon motion made by Mr. Ellington, seconded by Mr. Marker, and unanimously passed, the Commission returned to Regular Session. Adiournment 19 No further business remained to be discussed and Chairman DeHaven adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed May 2, 1996) REZONINGS: Richard L. & Nancy S. Heisey (REZ #003-96) Back Creek 1.43 ac. from RA to B2 for self- storage warehouse units Location: 2 mi. W. of 37; on So. Side of Rt. 50; approx. 220' W. of Rt. 654 (Poorhouse Rd) Submitted: 04/04/96 PC Review: 05/01/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 06/ 12/96 Dr. Raymond L. Fish (REZ #002-96) Stonewall 4 ac. B2 to B3/ 7.3 ac. RA to B3 animal hosp. & beverage warehs Location: So. East corner of I-81 & Rt. 672 intersection; Clrbrook Submitted: 04/02/96 PC Review: 05/01/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 06/12/96 Woodside Est. (REZ) Opequon 36.4589 Acres from RA to RP for -T s.f. residential lots Location: West side of Double Churches Rd (Rt. 641), south of the intersection w/ Fairfax Pk (Rt. 277) Submitted: 11/15/95 PC Review: 12/06/95 - Recommended Denial BOS Review: 02/13/96 Tabled for unspecified period at applicants reg. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Dr. Raymond Fish (MDP) Stonewall Animal Hospital & Mobile Office Sales on 20.93 acres (B2 & B3) Location: East side of I-81 and south side of Rt. 672 Submitted: 11/02/95 PC Review: 01/03/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 01/24/96 - Approved Pending Admin. A provah J, Awaiting completion of easement plat for water line ext. Preston Place Apts. Phase H (MDP) Shawnee Garden Apartment Units (rental). on 14.59 acres (RP) Location: No. Side of Airport Rd. (Rt. 645) Submitted: 01/29/96 PC Review: 02/21/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: --7[03/13/96 - Tabled by BOS for unspecified time. Whitehall Business Pk (Flying J) (MDP) Stonewall Business Pk on 52.04 Ac. (Ml & B3) Location: So. West quadrant of I-81 & Rt. 669 intersection Submitted: 01/31/96 PC Review: 02/21/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 02/28/96 -Approved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting completion of review agency requirements. Hill Valley (MDP) Location: Shawnee 54 SF Det. Cluster; 26.123 Ac. (RP) N.W. Corner of Valla Mill & Greenwood Rds. Submitted: 11115195 PC Review: 03/06/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 05/13/96 SUBDIVISIONS: Valley Mill Estates (SUB) Stonewall 21 SF Trad. Lots (RP) Location: No. Side of Valle Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 10/23/95 PC Review: 11/15/95 - Approved BOS Review: Pending Admin. Approval: Review not required --Has an approved MDP Awaitiniz bonding, signed plats, & deed of dedication Wine -Fred Co. IDC (SUB) Back Creek 2 M1 Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 [acres) j Location: Southeast side of Development Lane Submitted: 09/08/95 PC Review: 10/04/95 Approved BOS Review: Review not required --Has an approved MDP Pending Admin. Approval Awaiting signed plats. RT&T Partnership (SUB) Back Creek 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2) Location: Valley Pike knt. 1111 5o.) Submitted: 05/17/95 PC Review: 06/07/95 Approved BOS Review: I Review not required—has an approved MDP Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication Briarwood Estates (SUB) Stonewall T20 SF Det. Trad. Lots (RP) Location: Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 01/03/94 PC Review: Review date pending atapplicant's request. BOS Review: Review not required—has an approved MDP 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 Approved BOS Review: 1106/13/90 A Pending Admin. Approval: 11 Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed Harry Stimpson (S110/26/94 O e uon Two B2 Lots Location:Town Run Lane Submitted:09/23/94 1S roved: PC Review: 10/19/94 Approved BOS Review: Approved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting si ned lat. SITE PLANS: Shenandoah Presbytery Corp. (SP #021-96) Opequon Church on 2.4 ac. of a 6.5255 acre site (RP) Location: Location: 751 Fairfax Pike Submitted: 04/23/96 roved: Pendin Valley Mill Apts. (S1#020- 96) Shawnee 76 -unit apartment development on 7.684 acres (RP) Location: Corner of Rt. 658 & Rt. 659 Submitted:4/12/96 04/11/96 Approved:endin Pending all Elem. School (SP ) Stonewall School Bldg; developing 8.22 ac. of a 10.0122 ac. arcel (RA) n: F 3165 Martinsbur Pike, Clearbrook ted: 04/11/96 ed: Pending 5 American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) Stonewall Addition to post home on a 1 3.4255 acre site (B2) Location: 1730 Be ille Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Pending Ft. Collier Indust. Pk. Lease Bldg #3 (SP #017-96) Stonewall Warehouse/Indust. on 4.24 ac. of a 10.95 ac. site (M1) Location: 660 Brooke Road Submitted: 04/08/96 Approved• Pending C.E.D. Enterprises, Inc. (SP) Back Creek Bldg. Addit. for mineral process-ing on 0.27 ac. of a 10.00 ac. site Location: 221 Sand Mine Road Submitted: 03/27/96 Approved: Pending Glaize Truss Components Shawnee 1,188 sq.ft. Addition; 19.4 acres (MI) Location: 2749 Victory Lane Submitted: 03/22/96 Approved: Pending AeroCenter Business Pk (B.I. Chemical) (SP) Location: Submitted: Anuroved: Shawnee I Warehouse/Office on 3.12 acres Lot 2; So.West corner of 03/20/96 Ln. & Arbor Ct. Toan & Assoc./Noland Proj. (Const. Mgt.) (SP) Stonewall Distribution Warehouse on 0.2 ac. of a 4.17 ac. site (M1) Location: Stonewall Industrial Pk., Lot 14, Tyson Drive Submitted: 03/14/96 A roved: 04/11/96 Senseny Rd. Elem. School Addition (SP) Shawnee School Addition on 3.0 ac. of a 9.7 ac. site (RP) Location: 1481 Senseny Road Submitted: 03/11/96 Approved: Pendin Dominion Knolls (SP) Location: Stonewall Townhouses on 20.278 ac. (RP) Intersection of Baker Lane and Gordon Street Submitted: 02/21 /96 Approved: Pending Pegasus Business Center, Phase I (SP) Shawnee Office, Misc. Retail, Business on 12.5 ac of a 6.0623 ac site (B2) Location: 434 Bufflick Road Submitted: 02/14/96 Approved: Pending 7 AT&T P.O.P. Bldg. (SP) Stonewall Bldg. Addition on 0.10 ac. Of a 0.19 acre site (RP) Location: 2032 Martinsburg Pike (US 11) Submitted: 02/13/96 Approved: Awaiting Recorded Boundary Line Adjustment Plat Hardees Mobile Oil Con- venience Center (SP) Back Creek Conven. Cntr/Rest. on a 1.0727 I ac. site (RA) (CUP #011-95) Location: Southeast corner of Rt. 50 West and Ward Avenue Submitted: 12/20/95 Approved: Pending D.K. Erectors & Maintenance, Inc. (SP) Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on a 10 acre site (M2) Location: 4530 Northwestern Pike Submitted: 12/28/95 Approved: Pending Regency Lakes, Sect. E (SP) Stonewall 95 units on 28.0 acres (MIil) Location: North of Regency Lakes Drive Submitted: 10/27/95 Approved: Pending Wheatlands Wastewater Facility (SP) Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres 1 (115) Location: So.West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: Being held atapplicant's request. Flex Tech (SP) Stonewall Ml Use on 11 Ac. (MI) Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Being held atapplicant's request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: David A. Keller (CUP 003- 96) Gainesboro Comm. Outdoor Rec. Facility - Archery Range (RA) Location: Off Rt. 671 in Shocke sville Submitted: 04/05/96 PC Review: 05/01/96 - Recommended Approval w/ conditions BOS Review: 105/22/96 Robt. E. Rose Memorial Foundation, Inc. (CUP) Stonewall Home for Adult Care (RP) Location: 549 Valle Mill Road Submitted: 03/06/96 PC Review: 04/03/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 04/24/96 - Approved Howard A. Pohn (CUP) Gainesboro Cottage Occupation - Blacksmith Shop (RA) Location: 709 Cattail Road Submitted: 02/16/96 PC Review: 03/06/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 04/10/96 - Approved VARIANCES• Holiday Inn Express (BZA Opequon 7'6" sign setbk & a 89.5 sq.ft. #006-96) Allied Wood Products - 2546 Martinsburg Pike sign size var. for existing sign 04/24/96 BZA Review: (B2) Location: W. Side of Town Run Ln. (Rt. 1012) & S. Side of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) Submitted: 04/26/96 BZA Review: 05/21/96 Verlo V. Cutshaw (BZA #004-96) Stonewall 14' side yd. variance for a warehouse/storage bldg. (Ml) Location: Allied Wood Products - 2546 Martinsburg Pike Submitted: 04/24/96 BZA Review: 05/21/96 Richard Scott & Dawn Krueger (BZA #005-96) Opequon 15' rear yd. variance for 12' 1 addition (RP) Location: 112 Southdown Circle, Albin Village, Stephens Cit Submitted: 04/25/96 BZA Review: 05/21/96 10 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner H RE: Committee Reports DATE: April 30, 1996 The Planning Staff will be providing the Planning Commission with detailed reports of the committee meetings that are held each month. Staff envisions this approach as a means for the Planning Commission to participate in committee activities, to enhance education of the various issues, and to provide direction to staff for future actions. Staff recommends that specific procedures be established for the consideration of information under Committee Reports. A reasonable approach may be for the Chairman to recognize written reports when the appropriate Planning Commissioner is reporting on committee activities. The Chairman could then ask if there are any items that are within the detailed narrative that warrant discussion or action during that meeting. Those items could then be noted by staff and discussed further under "Other" after regular business is complete. Included with this memorandum is a detailed committee report pertaining to items that are being conpidered by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). This report is designed to identify the issues before the committee, provide information based on committee discussion, and to recommend various actions that may be desirable to the Planning Commission. Staff will be glad to modify future reports from this initial format to incorporate any ideas, comments, or concerns of the Planning Commission. Staff asks that the Planning Commission recognize item number 1 and item number S for discussion under "Other" during this meeting. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ITEM #1: Sewage Removal Operations in the RA, Rural Areas District The applicant has made a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow sewage removal and drain cleaning service operations in the Rural Areas District with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposal places a performance standard on the CUP stating that this would only be permitted for any business that has been in operation prior to June 1, 1978. B) DRRS Action The committee did not believe that this was an appropriate operation in the Rural Areas District based on the potential intensity of the use and the impacts to adjoining properties. The DRRS felt that this use was better suited for the industrial zoning districts. The DRRS also felt that the performance standard was unreasonable in that it appeared to be specific to one property instead of the Rural Areas District as a whole. C) Planning Commission Action Staff asks that the Planning Commission provide direction regarding this request. Options may include sending this back to the DRRS to address comments or concerns, forwarding a report to the Board with or without a recommendation, or requesting that staff advertise this amendment request for public hearing. ITEM #2: Commercial & Industrial Flex Space A) 5cT A request has been made by the development community to accommodate a need that the Zoning Ordinance does not currently provide for. The commercial and industrial flex space concept combines some retail, office, distribution, and limited manufacturing uses in a single development. This concept would involve buildings whose space could be allocated and used according to the needs of the potential customers. Page -2- DRRS Report B) DRRS Action The committee is interested in this concept and has suggested that staff work with the development community to provide two scenarios. First would be to establish a new Zoning District that would accommodate this use. Second would be to utilize an existing Zoning District and incorporate specific uses from the B-2, B-3, and M -I Districts that would be appropriate in a flex use setting. In either case, the committee would only be interested in this use if it was within a master planned commercial or industrial park. C) Planning Commission Action The Commission may want to advise staff of any comments or concerns at this time. The Commission may also want to direct staff to present this concept as an informal discussion when it is further along. ITEM #3: Buffer and Screening Standards Between the Rural Areas District and the Residential Performance District WE TOO0- A request has been made by the agricultural community to require buffer and screening requirements for Residential Performance District developments that are located on the perimeter of the Urban Development Area when they adjoin Rural Area District properties whose primary use is agribusiness or is within an Agricultural & Forestal District. B) DRRS Action The committee directed staff to develop reasonable performance standards which have been presented. The committee is not convinced that buffers and screening are needed in this situation and directed staff to present the performance standards to the Top of Virginia Builders Association to receive their input and concerns. C) Planning Commission Action The Commission may want to advise staff of any comments or concerns at this time. Page -3- DRRS Report ITEM #4: Planning Commission Tabling Procedures During the Planning Commission Retreat in February, it was suggested that new tabling procedures be created for the Planning Commission's Bylaws. This item was forwarded to the DRRS for consideration. B) DRRS Action The committee directed staff to develop new procedures for tabling that provided the Planning Commission with the authority to table an item due to deficient information or to address concerns that are expressed during discussion. The committee felt that the applicant should not be allowed to approach the Planning Commission again, until the necessary information was provided to staff and staff felt comfortable with the information. It was suggested that staff could work with the Planning Commissioners that represent the district in which the application was made to determine if the information was adequate. The committee also felt that the applicant should have the ability to request a tabling after the fact in the event of an emergency situation. C) Planning Commission Action The Commission may want to advise staff of any comments or concerns at this time. The Commission may also want to direct staff to present this concept as an informal discussion when it is further along. ITEM #5 Outdoor Batting Cages in the B-2, Business General District A) Scone A request was made to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow outdoor batting cages as a permitted use in the B-2 District. Page -4- DRRS Report B) D Action The committee felt that this use may be appropriate if reasonable performance standards were developed. Staff created standards that were reviewed by the committee. The committee recommended that this item should be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further action. C) Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission should schedule this amendment request for informal discussion or should advise staff to schedule this amendment request for public hearing. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: Buffer and Screening Requirements Amendment DATE: April 30, 1996 Staff continues to work on amendments to the above referenced item to provide flexibility to the development and design community. It has been suggested that the current buffer and screening requirements are excessive, in that they require too much land to be set aside. Concerns have been expressed that the cost of this land is too valuable to be reserved strictly for the purpose of providing buffer distance. Staff agrees with this argument to a point. Staff believes that distances can be reduced provided that the required buffer and screening methods are designed and constructed to provide for maximum protection. Until methods are developed to accomplish this, staff will continue to draft language that provides flexibility to the property owners. One method to promote flexibility is to allow adjoining property owners to design and develop a common shared buffer and screening easement between properties. Staff believes that this approach has several benefits, in that the amount of land required for the buffer may be reduced, the cost associated with the provision of an earth berm or solid wooden fence and landscaped plantings is reduced, the maintenance costs associated with the buffer are reduced, and the adjoining property owners are aware of the development potential of each property. Staff presented this concept, including the proposed language to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) in April. The DRRS felt that this amendment provided a benefit to the development community which would allow adjoining property owners to work together to design appropriate buffers. The DRRS recommended that staff forward the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission as presented. Included with this memorandum is the proposed ordinance amendment for review by the Planning Commission. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider the proposed amendment and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 165-37D Zoning District Buffers (8) Proposed developments required to provide buffers and screening as determined by Section 165-371)(1)(b) of this Chapter may be permitted to establish a common shared buffer and screening easement with the adjoining property. The common shared buffer and screening easement shall include all components of a full screen which shall be clearly indicated on a site design plan. A legal agreement signed by all appropriate property owners shall be provided to the Department of Planning and Development and shall be maintained with the approved site design plan. This agreement shall describe the location of the required buffer within each property, the number and type of the plantings to be provided, and a statement regarding the maintenance responsibility for this easement. The required buffer distance may be reduced by 50% for a common shared buffer easement if existing vegetation achieves the functions of a full screen. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/678-0682 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, AICPA ll RE: Revisions to Round Hill Land Use Plan DATE: April 30, 1996 Commissioners will recall that a recommendation was sent to the Board of Supervisors for the adoption of the 1996 version of the Comprehensive Plan in January of 1996. The Board expressed concern about various aspects of the update dealing with the Round Hill Land Use Plan. These concerns were addressed by staff and reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee at their meeting on March 11, 1996. While Committee members' reactions to the proposed changes were mixed, the staff feels strongly that the proposed plan, including the latest changes, represents a well thought-out approach to dealing with the issues involved. Staff believes that the Board's concerns have been addressed by the latest modifications to the Plan. These most recent additions, combined with previous revisions, make it clear that this is a long-range plan. The issues of permitting an extension of central sewer and the potential growth that might result have been dealt with in a way in which the fiscal interests- of the County as a whole are protected. The Plan leaves the timing of any extension, beyond areas already eligible for sewer, clearly in the hands of the Board. It is also made clear that any future extension would have to be funded through private investment and would be contingent on a number of other factors. There are a number of important elements of the Plan that should be noted. The appearance and transportation efficiency of the Route 50 corridor are to be protected. Needed intersections for feeder roads north of 50 are identified and methods for limiting the visual disruption are discussed. Any extension of sewer beyond the current Sewer and Water Service Area boundary (110 acres contained in Phase I of the Plan) would require Board action and would be funded by commercial development. 107 North Kent Street a Winchester, Virginia 22601-000 Page 2 Revisions to Round Hill Land Use Plan April 30, 1996 Phase H of the Plan (180 acres just to the west and south of Phase I) is earmarked solely for commercial development. It is anticipated that development of this Phase would require the extension of a sewer line from the Merriman's Lane stub. The current bottleneck within the City would have to be addressed before this would be feasible. The extension of sewer to the center of the Community (Phase III) would only take place following the development of zoning regulations specifically tailored to the community. New residential development would be limited. A large portion of the community (400-500 acres) is to remain under the current Rural Areas (RA) zoning. Staff is requesting that the Commission make a recommendation to the Board on the revised Round Hill Land Use Plan as well as the recommended 1996 Update of the Comprehensive Policy Plan which contains recommendations from the Round Hill Plan. Both the Land Use Plan and the relevant section of the Comprehensive Plan are attached for your ..................... .................... review. Both documents indicate the changes in wording with sty T and sita it g - Please let me know if there are any questions. KCT/r sa Attachment Land Use Frederick County. Rural Community Centers Rural community centers are relatively small centers of population and activity in the rural areas of Frederick County. Following the adoption of the 1982 Plan, the Rural Community Center Committee of the Frederick County Planning Commission was formed which proceeded to define rural community centers and to study their characteristics. The Committee held public meetings in 1984 and 1985 to solicit opinions on development policies and developed some recommendations on policies for the rural community centers. The following criteria were used to designate rural community centers: 1. Proximity to and access to collector or arterial routes. 2. Existing concentration of private commercial services within the center. 3. Existing concentration of public services within the center. 4. Access from concentrations of existing population. 5. Actual population growth in the area. 6. Access from concentrations of potential population (subdivided lots). 7. Proximity to other areas which could act as community centers. 8. Physical characteristics of land in the area. 9. Public perceptions. 10. Existing public facilities, churches, and civic clubs. The potential rural community centers identified, included the following; Gore Reynolds Store Gainesboro Round Hill Armel Shawneeland/North Mountain Star Tannery Whitacre/Cross Junction Albin Clearbrook/Brucetown/Stephenson 1996 Frederick County 78 Comprehensive Plan Provisions should be made in County policies to recognize the rural centers and to accommodate the differences between each center. Many of the centers are zoned for agriculture, which is not necessarily appropriate in relation to the functions of some of the centers. The Committee recommended that Armel, North Mountain/Shawneeland, and Reynolds Store,/Whitacre/Cross Junction be treated similarly as the surrounding areas. The recommendations for all other community centers suggest that additional commercial development will occur in the rural community centers. Only the recommendations for Gore suggest encouraging increased amounts and densities of housing in relation to surrounding rural areas. The recommendations for all rural community centers promote improved public services. The recommendations for the Round Hill Community Center place particular emphasis on increased road improvements and the provision of public sewer and water service. Water and sewer issues are also important in the Clearbrook, Stephenson, and Brucetown areas. A study designed to investigate and develop recommendations on possible methods of treating_ wastewater in the Round Hill, Clearbrook, and Brucetown areas was conducted. A report was drafted and was finalized October of 1993. The County needs to develop land use policies and regulations which will allow these centers to continue to serve their traditional function without spoiling their rural character. Of all the identified Community Centers, the Round Hill Community has been experiencing the most intense development pressure due to its close proximity to the City of Winchester, the Route 50\37 interchange, central sewer and water, and the County's Urban Development Area boundary. As a result of this, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee began the development of a long-range land use plan for the Round Hill Community first. Round Hill i The process of formulating a plan for the Round Hill Community began on May 8, 1995 when the Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC, a subcommittee of the County Planning Commission) and staff from the Department of Planning and Development, conducted a public meeting at the Round Hill Fire Hall. The CPPC held a second meeting on September 25, 1995. The purpose of this meeting was to present the draft recommendations of the Committee to the community. hiptit received at this plan, In response to the opinions expressed by residents of the community, and the clestrds bfthe Board 0£Subef" the plan recommends leaving portions of the Community Center designated as rural land use. In all, of the 1,100 acres within the community center, roughly 400 to 500 is designated to remain rural land under the committee's proposal. 1996 Frederick County 79 Comprehensive Plan Land Use In conjunction with the recommendation to maintain large amounts of open space adjacent to the core area of the Community Center, the plan also calls for the development of a new zoning category tailored to accommodate rural community uses and building patterns. This recommendation is discussed in more detail later in the report. ■• r-- TIAM • • • .•• .■ • • �� • .1 • • • .1 .1 • ■ • • ■ • • • - • . • ■ ■ • ■ •be ■ • • ■ • • ■ ■ subject• PUIUM, ILUal lubp nd iivoai• of ■■ • ■• •• The • ■ vroposal is brokendown into • .1 ••• .A i ■ .•• ••.A • �•. • • ■• • • •• • -• ON rrzase ii snslae ttte current neer and Water e ce Axes It will ultimately be up to the Board of Supervisors to determine when it is appropriate to include other areas of the community within the Sewer and Water Service Area, a necessary first step to extending utilities. within the community, Or within any phase, Yvill be Ieg 'ate' to so i een&+y-the P la, nurrs Development of any area would be dependent on the availability of appropriate infrastructure; therefore, the plan does not recommend rezoning land within the community for commercial development prior to the provision of central sewer and water. It is also recommended that as land is There are a number of recommendations that are important elements of the proposed phasing. First, given the fairly uniform response from residents of the community, no area is proposed for high density residential development, although soine form of inaltifainily 1. using might 1- - - - - - - - As mentioned previously, the plan recommends that a new zoning category be adopted prtr,tr. development within Phase xz, which, among other things, allows residential development within the Community Center at a density in keeping with traditional development patterns for the community. 1996 Frederick County 80 Comprehensive Plan Design Principles to be Established for Round Hill Curb -side parking Low speed limit Shade trees on both sides of street Modest front yard setback 15-30 feet Large amounts of open space - 50% Modest size commercial retail uses Large predominance of single family dwellings Discreet signage - maximum 10% of facade area Underground utilities The new zoning classification should establish building location and use regulations which perpetuate existing development patterns. These regulations should be developed following a thorough examination of existing building patterns within the community. Standards addressing such things as minimum and maximum front setbacks and building height for structures within the core area of the community, permitted commercial uses and their scale, the location of parking areas as well as their size, and screening should all be considered. The intended purpose being to permit the continuation of favorable building patterns, styles, and mix of uses found within the community rather than utilizing existing regulations which were not written with small rural communities in mind. In the case of the core area, the plan suggests that a minimum lot size in the range of one half, to one acre be established. This , econiniendation is based on a study of existing lot size vyllich i evealed thaL Approximately 166 of the existing lots are betvveen a half acre and o . m. The plan proposes that this would go into effect as part of Phase III of the land use plan. This lot size change would only take place as part of an overall zoning change for the core area of the Community, and would be dependent on the installation of a central sewer system. The smaller lot size is not proposed for the entire Community Center. Areas on the periphery of the community should be developed on larger lots. There should also be an effort made to preserve large contiguous parcels of open land around the perimeter of the Community Center as a means of maintaining the rural atmosphere. 1996 Frederick County 81 Comprehensive Plan Land Use re 12 `.rif Round Hill Community Number of Lots by Acreage O 0-1X2 1/2-1 1-2 2-5 5and up Lot Size The plan recommends that standards also be developed that will minimize the visual disruption to the Route 50 corridor. This would involve standards for shared entrances, require a green space along Route 50 which might include a bike and or walking trail, address screening of structures and parking areas and their location in relation to Route 50 itself, control the size, number and location of signs, require underground utilities, and finally, set minimum standards for landscaping. The objective is to prevent the creation of a typical commercial strip along this route. The regulations should discourage individual business entrances on Route 50 both for aesthetics reasons as well as transportation efficiency. Commercial establishments should front feeder roads which connect to Route 50 at signalized intersections. 1996 Frederick County 82 Comprehensive Plan Description of Phases Phase 1 The first phase in the proposed plan contains.•• • 'C .9 -acres. This phase involves establishment of a Businessffiffic, "1%1" illAIL1%,diately adjacent to the Route 37 inteichange. T portion of the phase contains rotrgHy 80 aci es. Apprmdniately 30 ac, es adjacent to the railroad, just vvest of Route 37, in, designated fb, future light industiiahbusiness nbe. The eniainde, of the -low 9 we'll Lei 101biftWIL"IMMO 31 Phase 11 The second phase of the proposed plan involves an area designated fo _. .__ _ _ .......... ..........I .......... ......... additional business and ©ffice uses:; The total area in this phase amounts to just over 1-65 180 acres. There was a great deal of discussion at the Committee level regarding the best category of use for this portion of the community. It was finally determined that in order to allovv f0i tile suited.fle?dbility of possible future use, vviffle at the saine time maintaining control nt issues such as density mid tinfirig of future development, a planned unit develOpnient s best This app, oach leaves open the possibility of a va, iety of land-.., L'y v%.,S HIM cat, be Jointly planned 1996 Frederick County 83 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Phase III The third phase encompasses the core area of the Community as well as some additional business\office uses along Route 50 for a total area of roughly 300 acres. The plan calls for infill residential development within the core area along with some appropriately scaled commercial uses. This portion of the phase involves roughly 250 acres. As mentioned above, it is not recommended that residential development take place under the current Residential Performance regulations, but rather that new regulations be developed that enable the continuation of the rural community atmosphere. It is also recommended that the development be predominately single family residential with the possibility of some small scale businesses aimed at serving the immediate community. As with other phases, the type of development anticipated would require the availability of central sewer. Since the provision of public utilities will involve a substantial investment, this phase also proposes further expansion of business\retail westward out Route 50 as a means of funding the extension. The business area in this phase contains roughly 50 acres. Again, it is recommended that the commercial development be permitted only after the formulation of specific standards designed - to address the visual impact of such development. ( ROUND HILL LAND USE PLAN) 1996 Frederick County 84 Comprehensive Plan IIMMRM in intentionally left blank 1996 Frederick County 85 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Infrastructure Sewer An agreement, :wgz::C 1,984, between the City of Winchester and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority reserves 953,600 gallons of capacity within the sewer line which terminates just east of Route 37 for use by the County to serve the Round Hill Community. estfinate of usage ffir the lzind use plan being pioposed. The estimate takes int ) account e uses7-�to develop to their maximum capacity tinde, HIM, appropriate-zorring-. .. ON r .. m.. • r . . 1.__ . .. . .... .. . . . . ... . .. .....bel.. .. ... ...-lid-foolvil :. .. ...• for, §99—Mirn 91 min • .. . . . . • .Y) I ILIM gel eoem Imil losing • - . • . . ilawr. • n • r :w • . •r• • .. • . r .. • • •-1 MIA go xif.1 NJUIALor.• . r • . • 77915111 IM491fill 1145N,35 iza—,:iq11.i ••If r-MILeAt."P.Iklnlll.r • •• • • r i 1996 Frederick County 86 Comprehensive Plan As with development proposals within the current Urban Development Area, construction of new collector roads and the installation of sewer and water within the Community Center would be the responsibility of the developer. Each of the phases contain segments of collector roads which are intended to channel traffic to and from a few key intersections along Route 50. These collectors are seen as a preferred alternative to permitting an excessive number of individual business entrances on Route 50. The locations of collectors roads shown are not intended to be precise. Development proposals submitted for specific areas would be expected to provide for roads which make the. connections indicated and serve the intended function, but would not necessarily follow the precise alignments shown. As the areas develop, signalization will be required where collectors intersect Route 50. Procedures already in place would require that development pay a pro rata share toward the cost of such facilities. The recommendations contained within the Round Hill Land Use Plan attempt to allow for growth within the Community Center without overwhelming, and ultimately destroying, the features that distinguish the community from the surrounding County. In particular, the plan: ► calls for the development of a variety of regulations that would protect the appearance of the corridor and limit uses within the Community prior to any extension of sewer or water, M. directs large scale commercial growth away from the core area of the community, ► minimizes residential development, 11 maintains large amounts of open space, ► ensures that new development within the core area is in keeping with the scale of the community, ► calls for a transportation network that would feed traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages a proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself. 1996 Frederick County 87 Comprehensive Plan Land Use While the plan does not offer specific design standards or land use regulations, it suggests features that should be examined and calls for the development of a new zoning district that is tailored to Round Dill. Route 50 West should not become a typical commercial strip. A green space should be maintained along either side of the road and a pedestrian/bikeway should be incorporated into development plans. It is hoped that many of the standards proposed, once developed, will be applicable to other Community Centers throughout the County. Issues: ► All Community Centers need to be evaluated on an individual basis and appropriate land use policies developed ► There is a need to determine to what extent rural community centers will be the primary location of commercial and service uses in the rural areas The extent to which additional commercial and residential development should be allowed in each rural community center needs to be determined. ► What density of housing development should be allowed in each center? A policy governing the provision of public services to rural community centers needs to be established Table 12: Comparative Facts and Figures of Rural Community Centers 1996 Frederick County 88 Comprehensive Plan Clearbrook, �ATEGURY Gainesboro Round Hill Gore Stephenson, Arariel $rucetown HOUSING SingleFamily 122 266 101 346 158 Mobile Homes 13 14 23 229 26 Total 135 280 124 575 184 LOT SIZE Avera e 13 2.75 7.5 4 6.25 1996 Frederick County 88 Comprehensive Plan i.� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MFMnRQNnTij�r TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM.- Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I" SUBJECT: Request to Expand Urban Development Area DATE: April X 1996 Staff has received a request to consider including a 9.81 acre parcel in the Urban Development Area. This parcel, identified by PIN 63-A-3, is located on the western side of the City of Winchester, along the City and County corporate boundary, and north of Middle Road. Presently, the UDA follows the corporate boundary in this area of the County. This request, made by Stephen M. Gyurisin of G.W. Clifford & Associates, would enable the developer of the Westridge subdivision, located in the City, to continue the current subdivision onto the 9.81 acre parcel, located in the County and outside the UDA. Attached is the letter of request from Mr. Gyurisin, dated March 4, 1996. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee discussed this request at both their March and April meetings. At their April meeting, a motion to recommend approval of the request was made, but the vote to recommend approval did not pass. At issue was the concern that permitting an expansion to the UDA, as requested, would establish a trend that encourages existing subdivisions located in the City to continue developing into the County. Staff has researched the potential for future requests to expand the UDA to permit additional City subdivisions to continue over in the County. The results of this research found that there is a potential on two additional parcels, totaling an estimated 104 acres. Attached is the summary of the research, as presented to the CPPC during their consideration. Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider a recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Should the Commission feel additional information is necessary, staff would be glad to respond to your requests. Attached are copies of the proposed subdivision and its connection to the existing Westridge subdivision. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Attachments 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Location Map for PIN: 63—A-3 Glaize Development gilbert w, clifford & associates, inc. INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers Land Planners Surveyors Water Quality Analyses Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • P. 0. Box 781 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 • (540) 898-2115 Winchester Office: 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, VA 22601 • (540) 667-2139 March 4, 1996 Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Westridge Dear Kris: In accord with our discussion last week, please place plan committee agenda for March 11, 1996. We wish current subdivision into the remaining portion of County. this project on your comprehensive to discuss the continuation of the the property located in Frederick Enclosed is a copy of an overall plan for Westridge. The area marked in yellow is the portion of the property located in Frederick County. Westridge is an existing, approved subdivision located on the west side of Middle Road, Route 628, The City -County line crosses the property with about 38.66 acres located in the City of Winchester and 9.81 acres in Frederick County. This subdivision was designed using City of Winchester development standards. It has public sewer and water, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, dedicated open recreational area, underground utilities on 10,000+ square foot lots. At this moment, we plan to continue with the same type of development on the remaining 9.81 acres located in Frederick County currently zoned Rural Area (RA). To continue as planned, this portion of the property has to be zoned Residential Performance (RP). I look forward to meeting with you and your committee to discuss this project. Sincerely, clifford & associates, inc. Step M. Gyurisin MG / f nc . BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas J. O'Toole, P. E. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P. E. Earl R. Sutherland P. A P. Duane Brown, C. L. S. WE. L. Wright, Laboratory Director E Discussion Regarding Expansion of the Urban Development Area --A Look at Adjacent County and City Properties Under Common Ownership -- As requested by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee at their March meeting, staff has researched the potential for requests to expand the Urban Development Area to include property that is divided by the City and County political boundary line. This request by the CPPC was in response to a request from G.W. Clifford to include a 8.43 acre parcel within the UDA, DAacre parcel is located ted adjning to a e t tlo�he Westwed by hd development subdiision located in subdivision. This g ( the City), and is held by the same property owner. Staff researched the County and City political boundary and the adjacent properties. Many of the parcels that border the political boundary in the City are currently developed. Staff found that qualifying properties were located along the western boundary of the City, between Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50 west) and Middle Road (Rt. 628). Those properties that have not been developed were further researched to determine who owned the properties. Expansion of the UDA boundary would be necessary prior to residential rezoning of any of these parcels. There appear to be only a few properties that may potentially request an expansion to the UDA for future development considerations. These properties are either owned by the same owner or are owned by holding companies that potentially have common development interests. The following identify those properties that may request modifications to the UDA boundary: Glaize Development; owns 8.43 acres in the County (53-A-3), adjacent to the existing City subdivision "Westridge". This is the property that prompted this research. Pembroke Cove Properties; owns 100 acres in the County (53-A-91), adjacent to 98 acres in the City owned by Abrams Creek Development Association (230-01-1). Walter Gruff, owns 3.46 acres in the County (53-A-5), and an adjacent 3.13 acres in the City (288- -3). April 8, 1996 Jv � » O t . /. . • CNA \ .�« . & .j 9 200 Narth Cannoron Street / b - (� Winchester, Virginia 22801 � � \• ,c N• 540 867-2139 - �1(fl ),' �. p I WE STRID GE 1; c� I R� J o5 0 0.�� Section III ' �� ' LOCATION MAP CD Frederick County, Virginia dwg. no: 'West,dsr:," Job no: r t� �.'""yy' / �; •� 4 - i 1 /}•" :•. Oi) _ p 150-c aide Greenwich Driw drawn by. S$ date: rroructy 19, 1996 SHEErI 1 OF 4- ;,"t' l r • , )! / It I $:L Fredericksburg. Virginia 22401 } �'1 54o 898-2115approved by. CEM scale: 1"-2000' 621 z n /11' 37' ) \ 797iT y •I/•` !:!,���k• �i/r • ./�M i L G) 11 fy y' Cen r —Hill.. •i:: CREEK i 41 if 5 )L�>1 ' 1 s �•��� r i �• YS. _ -- DAR it a0 ��.��_ � � Li �% � ��' _ / _ {.� � � .,� O • � � t � � � � �•� r 1 r ice` }:u F.t'VPI f )�•�� L. -i. t;°,/ �T 'i ��• +•,r • M,:1,. ImenlaJ Stae -- 7 �• 756. ' d / i I 1 �( J / \ Z 8f �• _ • , J Rob i son. �,el S c h 000 SL ti ,/ I �� /t ; tt :. ��,� PO er I i,y `� y ,, • fJ ,.� t .. / ..: `� ' (x771 eoo ✓ X00 ('�,( ���)] li j o)) — �� w3'�• �� l V �� �, �� 1� ( • l ij w' j 1V J (• . 783 C 90/ �I JJ '�! ( r l' lV ./ 'X9/ .S 1 �, �� O� X 71 , /- • I �. ,, /• • t', r/ :•' • fie, _ 7 �(� - o �ytl '�r Kernstown .• '',• �0 • 4 /, ,,� J r� 8131 p o w_•�,` a_ /•7Jta .l ••-:� •• ' 1 850 i I � :. � "' / . _% ` / � - -� �j �-. \ J � cam'' • � ( ", '• II cY, � 51,E i„ � i .� � � � • ga8 Jc. I l�(� i S f JI G � )� 1) ( •) \� 4 . i _ )� I i / \��� •9� '�'— TT r= q•(( J f J (o �ll•.i Illi• f•fff • •��.nr �1�. /�� � •/' •��)1 l ` / •:•� t'�y1;��\ � f* _• ��; �1. •et_-� f` ��� ; .i'i. •�' ` ((� Old Opequnhyb. > •• • +/ .•' k J 8�� ' _/�� ••�••.� l �j Cern \ O' • v 750. )I ���'> ^') l.'• (1�(U ) C \L n l 110 \ - _ �• •�� tel.- �0 �,_ 6n (rQ Wirkthsstw, Wginfa 22601 (W) 687-2139 (D 01. 0 (D 0 Lo 0 150—C Old* Gmw*ich Dr%v NIF Koonce $aj Fradw1cla"rg. WgInto 224M NIF Cather (50) 899-2115 WESTRIDGE Section III EXISTING SURVEY Frederick County, dwg. no:7— we-i'd 7 7 job no: 1996 by. SS date: February 19, iiq SHEET 2 OF sd by. CEM scale: Frederick Cit of NIF Allen 1 1 — 108132' County Winchester I --- --- i TEMPORARY 7c�'Q C6 CUL—DE—SAC 1 oo EASEMENT t 0 200 400 800 moo CIO 4S1 0 4 N/F Koonce 6n "Wlncheeter, �S Vlrglnla 22601 (W) 667-2139 O5�` rJ CD `7E' F, • O a 1"! 150-c oiee aremwkh ad. a s;40)) Z S rgMla 22101 N/F Co th er WE S TRID GE Section III SOILS Frederick County, dwg. no: "west.dwg" lJob no: drawn by. ss date: February 19. 1998 approved by. CEM scale: 1"=200' Virginia SHEET 3 OF 4 Frederick Citof NIF Allen i County �-------�,_---- Winchester ♦ y.FST �l .,. , �/i.� '� ♦ O %' •�� Rely � ' rl O ->c O LI Frederick—Poplimento Loams N 2-7% Slopes I1tGCo Frederick—Poplimento Loams N 7-15% Slopes { v X,� V Az0 0 200 400 800 �`'� . ���_2 a =801 WE STRID GE r- Section III O r4" +��► r' PROPOSED 50' R/W 180—C Ode Greenwich Drive N/F KoonceN/F Cather P, F,.derM burg, Vtrglnie 22401 840 898-2115 Frederick County, dwg. no: "west.dw.^," I Job no: drawn by. ss date: February 19, 1996 approved by. CFM scale: 1"=200' Frederick City of N/F Allen County Winchester ----------..__..__�_ --J o /- FST PIP^, Virginia SHEET 4 OF 4 4o SNF 0 200 400 800 0, ` I I I �to �