PC 11-20-96 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
NOVEMBER 20, 1996
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Minutes of October 16, 1996 Meeting ..................................... A
2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................... B
3) Committee Reports ................................................... C
4) Citizen Comments ........ . .................. D
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5) Rezoning #007-96 of Valley Proteins, Inc. to rezone 1.62 acres from RA (Rural Areas)
to M2 (Industrial General). This property is located at 1444 Indian Hollow Road and
identified with PIN 41-A-18 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District
(Mr. Wyatt)......................................................... E
6) Self -Service Storage Facility Amendments to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow
self-service storage operations in the M1 (Light Industrial District).
(Mr. Wyatt)...........................................�.......... F
PUBLIC MEETING
7) Master DevelopmentPlan #007-96 of Woodside II to develop 31.58 acres for 80 single
family detached cluster lots. The property is located on the west side of Double Church
Road (Rt. 641), south of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) intersection, and is identified with PIN
86-A-21 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
(Mr. Wyatt)......................................................... G
Pj-
DISCUSSION ITEMS
8) Draft 1997 Comprehensive Plan Update
(Mr. Lawrence) ...................................................... H
9) Discussion regarding the allowance of Adult Care Facilities in the RP, Residential
Performance District.
(Mr. Wyatt)......................................................... I
10) Other
1
File: K:\WP\CMN\96C0VERS\PCII 20.AGN
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, Virginia on October
16, 1996.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice-
Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; John H. Light,
Stonewall District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert
A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro
District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto,
Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Terry Stone, Gainesboro District
STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner H. Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I; Michael T. Ruddy,
Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1996
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of
September 18, 1996 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
2
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 10/14/96 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPS reviewed the updates to the Comprehensive
Plan which were mostly grammatical and statistical. She said there were no real changes in the format
of the plan.
Sanitation Authority (SA) - 10/15/96 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the City of Winchester has advised the SA that they
will not renew the County's contract, which expires in the year 2000, to purchase water from the
City. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the SA is fine with this decision because they have already
developed their own water source, ie. the Diehl Plant.
Discussion next ensued regarding backflow problems experienced by certain residential
properties. Mrs. Copenhaver explained that the SA's responsibility lies only to the property line. She
said that if the house is located in a low area and the homeowner installs fixtures below grade, water
will seek its own level. She said that some homeowners reported installing back-flow valves that now
do not work. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the reason they don't work is that they are not kept clean
because they were installed in the yard where there is no access. She said that back-flow valves
should be installed within the building with access to them. Mrs. Copenhaver explained that on
Westmoreland Drive, where the problems were first reported, the lines are flushed monthly by the
SA—she felt this was pretty good cooperation. She said that in addition, some fixtures were installed
by homeowners in basements without building permits. Commission members asked why the sewer
backup problems in residential basements were greater during stones when this is supposed to be two
separate systems --the stormwater and the septic. Mrs. Copenhaver replied that some people have
put sump pumps in their basements and they are pumping into the sanitary sewer, which is not
allowed. She added that it is possible that there are cracks and breaks in the line, which allows
surface water to penetrate. She said that infiltration is a common problem.
Winchester Planning Commission - 10/15/96 Mtg.
Mr. Ours reported that the City Planning Commission approved a conditional use
3
permit for a cellular tower to be raised from 180' to 200% approved a site plan for the new Grand
Furniture building at the intersection of South Loudoun and Jubal Early Drive; and approved a
subdivision for a parcel of land behind McDonald's on Pleasant Valley Road for a motel.
PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan #008-96 of Carriebrook by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. This
property, zoned B2 (Business General) and RA (Rural Area), is located on the east side of
Route 642, south of the intersection of I-81/ Rt. 37 at Kernstown and is identified with P.I.N.
75-A-89 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin and Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc., the project engineers/designers, presented the master development plan to the
Commission. Mr. Gyurisin reported that the proposal is for the development of 20 acres of B2
(Business General) zoned land for commercial/office uses within three phases. He pointed out that
they have a preliminary plan accommodating six business sites with public sewer and water. Mr.
Gyunsin explained that provisions have been made to allow for a future turning radius for Route 642
and possible future right-of-way connecting with any north/south collector road that would connect
with the future extension of Route 37. He said that the plan shows a central road with a cul-de-sac
and a stormwater management facility is to be located at the low point of the property.
Mr. Ruddy said that there were no outstanding concerns by any of the reviewing
agencies regarding this master development plan. With regards to Planning and Zoning, however,
Mr. Ruddy said that the staff felt the following issues should be addressed on the plan: 1) the
maintenance of a 50' woodland strip as a zoning district buffer adjoining the Stossel property; 2) a
discrepancy in the amount of disturbed areas of steep slopes and woodlands exists and needs to be
addressed and identified; 3) the Opequon Creek, its tributaries, and associated wetlands need to be
identified; 4) existing historical sites need to be identified; 5) detailed plans for the possible extension
of the cul-de-sac onto the RA property and its impact on existing features should be included as a
part of future development plans; and a note identifying the reserved right-of-way for future
alignment of Route 642 should also be included.
Concern was raised by Commission members about drainage impacts on surrounding
properties, especially Lakeside, after the future extension of Route 37. Mr. Maddox replied that there
would be no drainage impacts on Lakeside or any other parcel. He said this site drains directly into
the Opequon.
Commission members were also concerned about traffic impacts on Route 642. Mr.
4
Gyurisin replied that there will be an impact, however, their design will take into account all the
requirements of VDOT. Mr. Maddox added that their plan is in accordance with the County's
Transportation Plan. He said that access to the site could change as a result of what takes place in
the future with the I-81/Route 37 improvements.
Members of the Planning Commission commented that this was not the most ideal
development site and its one advantage was its location next to I-81 and possibly, Route 37. It was
noted that much of the woodland on the site had recently been removed, so there was nothing to
measure whether 25% of it would be disturbed or not. Commission members felt there was a slim
chance of developing the site without disturbing more than 25% of the steep slopes, however, the
steep slopes, unlike the woodlands, would still be measurable. They felt that if the County was going
to hold the applicant to the steep slope requirement, the applicant may have a problem. Planning
Commissioners felt that the use proposed was probably the best use of the site.
Mr. Wyatt stated that the Board of Supervisors has the authority to allow disturbance
of large areas of steep slopes, provided that the overall land use is associated with shopping centers,
office parks, or industrial parks. Mr. Wyatt said that it may benefit the designers to consider the use,
since it has not yet been identified.
There were no public comments regarding this plan.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Master Development Plan #008-96 of Carriebrook by G. W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc. with the stipulation that all review agency comments are adequately addressed prior
to final approval.
Master Development Pian #009-96 of Frederick County/ 1-81 Industrial Park by G. W. Clifford
& Associates, Inc. This property, approximately 85 acres, is zoned M2 (Industrial General),
and is located on the east side of Route 11 South, Y2 mile north of the Route 37 and Route 11
intersection. The property is identified with P.I.N. 63-A-86 in the Back Creek Magisterial
District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin and Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc., the engineers/designers for the project, presented the plan to the Commission.
Mr. Gyurisin reported that there will be an entrance onto Route 11; Phase I will extend to the center
of the site and will be serviced by a cul-de-sac; Phase II will encompass the remaining portion of the
property; a central road facility will ultimately connect with the master planned road on the Henkle-
Harris property; and a stonnwater management facility is proposed at the lower end of the site. Mr.
Gyurisin brought the Commission's attention to the two existing houses on the property, one of
which has been identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey. He stated that these structures have been
identified on the plan and will be preserved. He also pointed out two buffer areas designated on the
pian. Mr. Gyurisin added that the site is highly visible from both I-81 and Route 11 and the site can
be served by rail.
Mr. Lawrence presented the Planning and Zoning staff comments. Mr. Lawrence said
that the road traversing this property should align with the Henkel -Harris property's master planned
road in order to provide for an interconnector road system. He recommended the preservation and
protection of the historic residential complex. Mr. Lawrence also recommended the establishment
of a Category B zoning district buffer along the south edge and the northeastern edge of the property,
adjacent to properties zoned B3 and M1 respectively.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came
forward to speak:
Mr. Marshal DeHaven, representing Schenk's Food Company, said that his company
is located on the west side of Route 11, almost across from the proposed site. Mr. DeHaven said that
he was not opposed to the project; however, his concern was the stance taken by the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority regarding sewer service to this area. He said that the sewer plan for the
proposed site is to tie into an interceptor line in back of the Mobile station. He said this is now a
City -operated line, but Frederick County said they would eventually take it over. Mr. DeHaven
stated that the County Sanitation Authority has not in the past been interested in providing existing
businesses in that area with any assistance in obtaining sewer. Mr. DeHaven explained that in recent
conversations, the County has stated they have no plans to provide sewer in that general area; and
therefore, Schenk's has continued to negotiate with the City. Mr. DeHaven said that this is an
expensive project that they have undertaken with the City. He stated that Schenk's is a substantial
taxpayer in the County and they receive no recognition as far as provision of necessary services. He
expressed objection to the idea of connecting with the City for sewer service and then having the
County Sanitation Authority take over, resulting in them being back, in his opinion, with the people
that turned their backs on them to start with.
Mr. Michael Collins, a nearby resident, said that his greatest concern was traffic
congestion on Route 11. Mr. Collins stated that from Shawnee Drive to Route 37, it is almost
impossible and very dangerous to get onto Route 11, especially when the factories close. He said that
in the mornings, there is a steady stream of cars coming off of Route 37 onto Route 11 and on
occasions, the traffic is backed up from the 7-11 Store all the way back to Route 37. Mr. Collins
was also concerned about the water and sewer availability and tying this subdivision into a 24" City
water line.
0
The Planning Commission also had concerns and questions regarding the sewer and
water situation and the traffic congestion problem. Mr. Maddox responded to these concerns by
explaining his interpretation of the City and County's position regarding the provision of service in
this area. He said that the County Sanitation Authority has no plans to service this area because it
is presently served by the City and the City has acknowledged that they can handle the service. He
stated that a facility with large water and sewer requirements would probably not be interested in this
location. With regards to the traffic situation, Mr. Maddox was of the impression that a traffic light
was going to be provided at the GE Plant access road.
Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT is also considering widening Route 651, which intersects
here, to provide right and left turn lanes to accommodate shift change traffic. Mr. Wyatt added that
this improvement has been requested by the Economic Development Commission.
Members of the Commission felt that the traffic light and road widening should help
somewhat with the existing traffic problems. Members of the Commission were in favor of the
proposal, as long as all reviewing agency and staff concerns were addressed.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend
approval of Master Development Plan #009-96 of the Frederick County/ I -S 1 Industrial Park
provided that the applicant adequately address all review agency comments, all issues identified in the
staff report, and all concerns of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
(Mr. Light abstained from voting on this plan.)
1997-1998 SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt stated that the Secondary Road Improvement Plan is a prioritized list of
road projects used by VDOT's Staunton District Office to determine which projects will be funded
in a given year. He said that the Transportation Committee held a public hearing on the Secondary
Road Improvement Plan on September 10, 1996 to entertain public requests for road improvements
throughout Frederick County and within the towns of Middletown and Stephens City. Mr. Wyatt
presented the Transportation Committee's recommended priority list and he proceeded to summarize
the list and the public hearing for the Commission.
Mr. Sager asked for the dates of the road counts specified in the plan. Mr. Wyatt
replied that the 1993 data is used because all of the 1995 data is not available until the end of 1996.
7
Mr. Sager was concerned about the fact that road projects, especially Route 647, are not moving
towards completion. Mr. Sager said that the current actual ADT count projection for Route 647 is
close to 9,000, as compared to the 1993 ADT count of 7,241 listed in the plan. Mr. Sager was
concerned about how much higher the traffic_ count would become before the road received the
necessary improvements. He said that Route 647 is overburdened with traffic from two schools, five
subdivisions, many businesses, tractor trailers, etc.
Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT explains the problem as a funding issue. He said that
within the Staunton District there are several counties fighting for a certain amount of dollars each
year and VDOT tries to be equitable on their allocations. He explained that VDOT first creates a
project number and begins feeding money into the project. He said that until they have 70% of the
total dollars available, they cannot advertise the project. Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that the money
being received by Frederick County is roughly in the $2'/z million range and that amount goes for the
entire secondary road system --the major road improvements, the hard -surfacing, the incidental
construction, and maintenance. He said that the price tag for the Valley Mill/ Greenwood Road
project alone is estimated at $4 million. Mr. Wyatt said this is the reason why these projects take so
long to move towards completion.
Commission members asked if the County's roadways would ever catch up with
development. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that this is where the Eastern Road Plan becomes critical. He
explained that what the County can't do, obviously, is expedite the improvement of these existing
roadways; but what we can do, through development proposals, is provide multiple connections and
choices, particularly within the Urban Development Area, Mr. Wyatt stated that many of the
proposals reviewed by the Commission, for example the master plans reviewed by the Commission
this evening, jibe with the Eastern Road Plan. Mr. Wyatt stressed that this is a critical component --
making sure that, particularly within our Urban Development Area, these roads are built --the Warrior
Drives, the minor collectors through the subdivisions, etc. Mr. Wyatt added that Route 642 is a
prime example of how the County works with the development community to do this type of
improvement and with Warrior Drive being a connection between the new Route 642 and Route 277,
some relief should be experienced.
Mr. Ellington asked if there was some provision to prevent one property owner along
a stretch of road who refuses to grant right-of-way, from holding up an entire hard -surfacing project.
Mr. Wyatt explained that several criteria are used for hard -surfacing improvements. He said that one
of them is a minimum traffic count (ADT on that road section) and the other is 100% participation
by the property owners along both sides of the right-of-way. He said that VDOT's position is that
they do not want to spend limited money acquiring additional right-of-way for a road they are already
maintaining. He said that the other reason is that there are so many other roads on the plan where
people are lining up and saying "take the right-of-way" that they feel that if that project is available
and doable, they would rather put the money into that project.
Mr. Wyatt explained to the Commission that Route 695 is the segment Mr. Ellington
is speaking of and along with that, Project #4, which is Route 692. He said that these two items were
discussed at length at the Transportation Committee level and in both of cases, VDOT has tried for
several years, unsuccessfully, to obtain the right-of-way. The Transportation Committee's
recommendation is that Project #3 be eliminated from the plan to free up money for other projects.
He said that regarding Project #4 (Route. 692), the Transportation Committee's recommendation is
that the project be scaled back from a 2.6 mile section to a 1.2 mile section, the portion where right-
of-way is available.
Commission members felt that if Route 695 remained in the #3 position, the County
would be denying someone else the opportunity, who is willing and capable of getting the job done.
It was pointed out that once VDOT schedules an advertisement date, they start scheduling
engineering work, surveying, etc., which all occurs 2-3 years before the advertisement date.
Commission members felt that it if they are not going to be able to do the 695 project, it would be
best to remove it or drop it down on the list. It was noted that the project would come back up in
a number of years and there would be another opportunity to try to complete the project.
Commissioners agreed that they needed to move on to the next potential user.
Mr. Wyatt next discussed "Incidental Construction" and said that VDOT has started
a new concept whereby each year they are going to go through the higher density residential
subdivisions (917 in this case) and make improvements to existing roads throughout that subdivision.
He said that VDOT will start with the Lakeside Subdivision, continue with the entire subdivision
where needed, and then move on to another subdivision.
There were no citizen comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the 1997-1998 Secondary Road Improvement Plan with the following
amendment: 1) Project #3 ( Route. 695) be moved down the list to become Project #9; and 2)
Project #4 (Route 692) be split into two projects with the 1.2 segment remaining in its current
priority (#4) and the 1.4 segment becomes #10.
PLANNING COMMISSION TABLING PROCEDURES
Action - Approved
Mr. Wyatt stated that the staff was asked to work with the Development Review &
Regulations Subcommittee to revise the current Planning Commission Tabling Procedures. He said
that staff presented the amended tabling procedures to the Commission for discussion on August 21,
1996; the Commission felt the amended procedures were appropriate and directed the staff to
9
forward those for final action. Mr. Wyatt stated that the Planning Commission Bylaws specify that
amendments may occur by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after 30 days prior notice.
Mr. Wyatt highlighted the amendments, stating that they specify the Commission's
authority to table items based on certain circumstances, it limits the applicant to tabling an agenda
item one time, and it requires the applicant to have the questionable information prepared and brought
back to the Commission before consideration again. Mr. Wyatt said that in considering tabling
situations, the Commission will need to advise the applicant of the 90 day action period to determine
if they would like to waiver that option.
Commission members felt that this amendment accomplished what the Commission
set out to do and that it was very clear and concise.
Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve the amendments to the Planning Commission Bylaws to revise Section 9-3-9 Tabling
Procedures, as follows:
RESOLUTION HONORING WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN
Action - Approved
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted a Resolution of Appreciation for William H. Bushman, who was
leaving his position as resident engineer for VDOT. The Commission wanted to recognize Mr.
Bushman for his outstanding contributions to Frederick County during his years of service.
ADJOURNMENT
p.m.
No fiuther business remained to be discussed and the Commission adjourned at 9:15
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director
Charles C. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
(printed November 8, 1996)
Application newly sub
REZONINGS:
/*
U" 1*0t, W ""W" 0 W
Gainesboro
e -Z
Location:
01
Submitted:
Location:
Intersection of Rt. 608 and Rt. 679
Submitted:
10/29/96
PC Review:
11/20/96
BOS Review:
12/11/96 -. tentatively scheduled
H. Clay DeGrange Estate
(REZ #006-96)
Gainesboro
51.0540 acres from RA to B2
Location:
N.W. quadrant of Rt. 50W/ Rt. 37 Intersection
Submitted:
10/18/96
PC Review:
11/06/96 - Tabled for 90 days.
BOS Review.-
Not yet scheduled.
MASTER DEVELOPMENT
PLA'J"ra,/FNS�e:J:'
Carriebrook (MDP#008-96)
J.
Fr+f1` `rr`
�8
r/'i/:r�f: .Al;i d/frff.e'••Js
l''rl•F
v'l.
:�r{••
6r'U"•'
I Commer./Offices on 20 ac. (B2)
':
l:•'fr5,
f rr•- :j:0,+f
'r.
�;•;•: /JrrJ.;J
??Ju rr•i: tf;fl"rr
•
r:frsl/
% F
:?
Location:
West side of Double Church Rd. (Rt. 641), south of Rt.r;
09/23/96
277 intersection.
Submitted:
10/29/96
PC Review:
11/20/96
BOS Review:
12/11/96 - tentatively scheduled
Carriebrook (MDP#008-96)
Shawnee
I Commer./Offices on 20 ac. (B2)
Location:
Ea. of Macedonia Ch. Rd; So. of I-81/37 intrsctn at
Kernstown; No. of Sanitation Authority Hd rtrs.
Submitted:
09/23/96
PC Review:
10/16/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
11/13/96
Frederick Co./I-81 Indust.
Pk. (MDP #009-96)
Back Creek Industrial Use on 85.18 ac. (M2)
Location:
Ea. side Rt. 11So., .5 mi. no. of Rt. 37/Rt. 11 intrsectn.
Submitted:
09/23/96
PC Review:
0/16/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
11/13/96
Mosby Station, Sect. I & II
(MDP #005-96)
Opequon 102 SF Detached Residential on
1 36.12 acres (RP)
Location:
Between old Rt. 642 & relocated Rt. 642
Submitted:
05/02/96
PC Review:
06/05/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
07/10/96 -approved
Admin. A proved:
1'1/07/96
SUBDIVISIONS:
Greenwood Rd. (SUB #007-
95)
Shawnee
Subdivision of 2.837 ac. into five
lots (RP)
Location:
W. Side of Greenwood Rd (Rt. 656) approx. 1,400'
north of Sensen Rd. (Rt. 657) intersection
Submitted:
07/22/96
PC Review:
08/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
09/11/96 - Approved
Admin. Approval:
EAwaifingsigned plats.
Fredericktowne Est. Sect.
14 & 15 (SUB #004-96)
Opequon
33 SF Trad. Lots on 9.9804
Acres (RP)
Location:
East of Stephens City; N.E. of Sections 11-13
Submitted:
05/02/96
MDP #007-88
Approved 12/05/88
Admin. Approval:
Section 15 Pending; Section 14 Approved 07/30/96
Valley Mill Estates (SUB)
Stonewall
1 21 SF Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
No. Side of.Valley Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
10/23/95 .
MDP #001-95
Approved 04/26/95
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting bonding, signed plats, & deed of dedication
Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB)
Back Creek
2 Ml Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285
acres)
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
Submitted:
09/08/95
MDP #003-87
1 Approved 07/08/87
Pending Admin. Approval
Awaiting signed plats.
RT&T Partnership (SUB)
Back Creek
I 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2)
Location:
Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.
Submitted:
05/17/95
MDP #003-91
Approved 07/10/91
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication
Briarwood Estates (SUB)
Stonewall
20 SF Det. Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
01/03/94
MDP #005-93
Approved 12/8/93
Pending Admin. Approval. -JI
Being held at applicants request.
Abrams Point, Phase I
(SUB)
Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots
Urban Lots
(RP)
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
JIat
PC Review:
06/06/90 Approved
BOS Review:
06/13/90 Approved
Pending Admin. A.ppE2!al-._jl
Awaiting deed of ded.-, letter of credit, and signed
Harry Stimpson (SUB)
Opeguon
Two B2 Lots
Location:
Town Run Lane
Submitted:
09/23/94
PC Review:
10/19/94 Approved
BOS Review:
10/26/94 Approved
Pending Admin. AppLovah
Awaiting signed plat.
SITE PLANS:
S "W joilis
Location:
Southeast comer of Victory Lane (Rt. 728) &
Independence Drive at Westview Business Center
Submitted:
11/06/96
Approved-
Pending
X
Z
n. Op
/*
X
Submitted:
10/21/96
Location:
U.S. Rt. 11 South of Stephens City
Submitted:
11/01/96
Approved:
Pending
X
Z
n. Op
Xf'r
-St 5
Submitted:
10/21/96
1-00
se
Location:
240 Lenoir Drive
Submitted:
.11/01/96
Approved:
Pending
James Wood H. S. Athletic
Fields (SP #047-96)
Gainesboro Educat. Use; ± 10 ac. disturbed
of a + 69 ac. tract (RA)
Location:
161 Apple Pie Ridge Road
Submitted:
10/21/96
Approved:
Pending
Toan & Assoc. (SP #046-96)
Gainesboro Kraft warehouse/office addition;
4.6 ac. of 13.8 ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
360 McGhee Road
Submitted:
10/18/96
Approved:
Pending
Winchester 84 Lumber
(SP #045-96)
Stonewall
Storage Shed; 1.19 ac. of a 4.98
ac. tract disturbed (B2)
Location:
Rt. 839
Submitted:
10/14/96
Approved: 11
Pending
Hilltop House Nursing
Home (SP #04496)
Stonewall4,409.2 sq. ft. addition to
nursing home (RP & B2)
Location:
Beille Pike
Submitted:
10/08/96
Approved:
Pending
Miller Milling East Co.
(SP #043-96)
Stonewall
Bldg. Addition (mill) on 0.91 ac.
of a 82.136 ac. parcel (Ml)
Location:
302 Park Center Drive; Fort Collier Industrial Park
Submitted:
09/23/96
Approve..
-Pending
Garrett Dentist Office (SP
#040-96)
Opequon 3,120 sf office on 26,720 sf lot
(Bl)
Location:
Northeast intersection of A for Rd. & Hyde Ct.
Submitted:
08/27/96
Approved:
10/28/96
Premier Place Travel
Agency & Residence
Shawnee
(SP #041-96)
Off: 500 sf; Resid. 2,000 sf, on
15,967 sf lot (B2)
Location:
133 Premier Place
Submitted:
08/27/96
Approved: 11
Pending
Preston Place T.H. Phase H
(SP #039-96)
Shawnee 44 T.H. Units on 2.7 ac. of a
1 14.59 ac. site (RP)
Location:
No. Side of Airport Rd. (Rt. 645), approx. 289, east of
Front Royal Pike t.522)
Submitted:
08/23/96
Approved:
L10/31/96
Stephenson Emmanual
U.M. Church (SP #038-96)
Stonewall 1',500 sf addition on 3.3515 ac.
tract (RA)
Location:
2720 Martinsburg Pike
Submitted:
08/21/96
11 Approved:
Pendin
Frederick Veterinary
Hospital (SP #037-96)
Opequon
Veterinary Hospital on .50 ac.
1 of a 2.05 ac. site (RP)
Location:
East side of A
for Rd (Rt. 642); so. of Westmoreland Dr
Submitted:
08/21/96
11 Approved:
Pending
Winchester Regional
Airport (SP #036-96)
Shawnee
T -Hangers & Taxiways on 3 ac.
of a 472 ac. site (AP1)
Location:
Winchester Regional
Airport; 491 Airport Road
Submitted:
08/20/96
11 Approved:
Pending
Kenneth D. & Theresa
Kovach (SP X1035-96)
Shawnee
1,040 sf addit. on 0.26 ac. of a
0.8486 ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
230 Arbor Court
Submitted:
08/14/96
Approved:
Pending
Hardees Mobile Oil
Conven. Cntr (SP #050-95)
Back Creek
Conven. Cntr/Rest. on a 1.0727
ac. site (RA) (CUP #011-95)
Location:
Southeast corner of Rt. 50 W and Ward Avenue
Submitted:
12/20/95
Approved:
-Pending completion of agency requirements.
Kohls Distribution Facility
(SP #034-96)
Shawnee Warehouse Distrib; 38 disturbed
ac. of 53.27 ac. site (Ml)
Location:
Airport Rd (Rt. 645) in the Airport Business Center
Submitted:
08/02/96
Approved:
Pending
Furlongs Sheet Metal (SP
#032-96) (B2)
Stonewall
5,040 sf bldg on 0.569 ac. of
0.583 ac. site for refrig. repair
Location:
Southeastern side of Baker Lane
Submitted:
07/17/96
Approved:
10/22/96
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 Count -y Store)
Submitted:
07/03/96
Approved:
Pending
Stonewall Mini -Storage (SP
#028-96)
Gainesboro Mini -storage on .25 ac. of a 2.56
ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
120 Lendir Drive
Submitted:
06/20/96
Approved:
Pendin
The Corners Restaurant
(SP #027-96)
Back Creek Addition to a restaurant on 0.10
acres of a 1.245 ac. site (RA)
Location:
1429 South Pifer Road
Submitted:
06/10/96
Approved
10/23/96
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
Cedar Creek Center (SP
#025-96)
Back Creek Museum on 0.485 ac. of a 3.210
acre parcel (Bl)
Location:
8437 Valley Pike (Rt. 11), Middletown
Submitted:
05/16/96
Approved:
Pending
10
AMOCO/House of Gifts
(SP #022-96)
Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft.
1 area of a 0.916 acre parcel (RA)
Location:
3548 North Frederick Pike
Submitted:
05/08/96
Approved:
Pending
Dr. Raymond Fish (SP
#023-96)
Stonewall Mini -Golf Facility on 5,000 sq.
ft. of a 16 acre parcel (B2)
Location:
S.E. Corner of 1-8 1 /Hopewell Rd. Intersection
Submitted:
05/09/96
Approved:
Pending
Parkview Apts. (formerly
Valle Mill A ts.)
Shawnee Li -unit apartment development
(SP #020-96) n 7.684 acres (RP)
Location:
Corner of Rt. 658 & Rt. 659
Submitted:
04/12/96
Approved:
Pending
American Legion Post #021
(SP #018-96)
Stonewall Addition to lodge building on
3.4255 acre site (B2)
Location:
1730 Benyville Pike
Submitted:
04/10/96
Approved:
Pendin
Dominion Knolls (SP #010-
96)
Stonewall 180 TH on 20.278 ac. (RP)
Location:
Intersection of Baker Lane and Gordon Street
Submitted:
02/21/96
Approved:
Pending
11
Pegasus Business Center,
Phase I (SP #007-96)
Shawnee Office, Misc. Retail, Business on
2.5 ac of a 6.0623 ac site (B2)
Location:
434 Bufflick Road
Submitted:
02/14/96
Approved:
-Pending
D.K. Erectors & Main-
tenance, Inc. (SP #051-95)
Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on
1 a 10 acre site (M2)
Location:
4530 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
12/28/95
Approved:
Pending
Wheatlands Wastewater
Facility (SP #047-89)
Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres
(R5)
Location:
So.West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522
Submitted:
09/12/89
Note:
ing held at applicant's request.
Flex Tech (SP #057-90)
Stonewall
I MI Use on 11 Ac. (MI)
Location:
East side of Ft. Collier Rd.
Submitted:
10/25/90
Note:
Being held atapplicant's request.
12
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Wade & Julie Marrow
(CUP #015-96)
Back Creek
Automobile Repair w/o Body
Repair (RA)
Location:
624 Back Mountain Road
Submitted:
10/11/96
PC Review:
11/06/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
12/11/96
Garris & Eva Poling (CUP
#014-96)
Gainesboro
Antique Shop (RA)
Location:
212 Whitacre Road in Gore
Submitted:
09/27/96
PC Review:
11/06/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
12/11/96
Peggy Ruble (CUP #012-96)
1 Gainesboro
Shale Mining (RA)
Location:
532 North Hayfield Road
Submitted:
09/06/96
PC Review:
10/02/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
11/13/96
13
Painter -Lewis, P.L.C.
(CUP #013-96)
'I Gainesboro
Country Market/Drive-Thru
I Food Service (RA)
Location:
dv d Va
4780 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
09/16/96. -
PC Review:
11/06/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review: IL
12/11/96
VARIANCES:
14
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
dv d Va
Ya
Location:
La side Drive, La side Estates, Lot 9
Submitted:
10/23/96
BZA Review:
11/19/96
14
PC REVIEW DATE: 11/20/96
BOS REVIEW DATE: 12/11/96
REZONING APPLICATION #007-96
VALLEY PROTEINS, INC.
To Rezone 1.62 Acres from RA (Rural Areas)
to M2 (Industrial General)
f
LOCATION: This property is located at the intersection of (Dicks Hollow Road) Route 608 and
Indian Hollow Road (Route 679).
' -1,101431 oral Ma lug:
RA, Rural Areas.District 154.94 acres Agricultural
M-2, Industrial General District 10.22 acres Office
Yropertv Lonine
Land Use
North: RA, Rural Areas District
Residential
South: RA, Rural Areas & M-2, Industrial General Districts
Residential; Vacant
East: RA, Rural Areas District
Agricultural; Vacant
West: RA, Rural Areas District
Residential; Vacant;
& Agricultural
PROPOSED USE: Construction of uses accessory to a new office building
!_ .g taky'afit U mufm
Virginia Dent. of Transportation: No objection to rezoning of this property. Before development,
this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage
features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Fifth Edition for review. Any
Valley Proteins, Inc. REZ #007-96
Page 2
November 8, 1996
work performed on State's right-of-ways must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is
issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Pu1ir, Works: The Public Works Department grants their approval of the proposed rezoning for
the stated use contingent upon the proposed storm water detention being designed to include the
existing office development, as well as the proposed.
1.4
Fire and Rescue: See attached letter from Douglas Viracofe dated October 11, 1996.
Health Department: The Health Department cannot comment favorably on this proposal at this
time. The applicant or owner should hire a soil consultant to possibly locate an approvable site for
sewage disposal for the new office building. If such a site is located, an application must be filed with
the local health department to determine if the proposal is in accordance with current regulations and
policies.
County Attorney: Proffers appear to be of sufficient form.
! 1 I. - • It t '
1) Site History
On October 10, 1979, the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #011-79 to rezone
5.011 acres of the 165.16 acre parcel from A-1, Agricultural Limited District, to M-2, Industrial
General District. Subsequent to this rezoning, the Board of Supervisors approved Site Plan #020-79
on November 14, 1979 for the construction of an office building. On January 15, 1986, the Board
of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application* 15-85 to rezone 5.207 acres from A-1, Agricultural
Limited District, to M-2, Industrial General District. This acreage is contiguous to the 5.011 acres
and was approved for additional office space. To date, this additional acreage has not been
developed.
2) Location
The property is located on the north side of Indian Hollow Road (Route 679), just west of Old Bethel
Church Road (a segment of Route 608). The property is located outside of the Frederick County
Urban Development Area and the Sewer and Water Service Area.
Existing land uses within the vicinity of this property include one single family dwelling located
directly across Indian Hollow Road from the existing office building, and land that is vacant or in
pasture land. Several properties adjoining the 165.16 acre tract are large tracts of land whose primary
Valley Proteins, Inc. REZ #007-96
Page 3
November 8, 1996
use is residential; however, these properties -are located to the north and west of the parcel and are
not visible from the 10.218 acres of this tract zoned M-2, Industrial General District, nor will they
be visible from the 1.62 acres that is proposed to be rezoned.
3) Site Suitability
There are no environmental features present on site with the exception of some minor areas of steep
slope. The Health Department has expressed concern with the need to locate an approvable site for
sewage disposal for the new office building, however, it should be noted that this comment is
applicable to the development that is already permitted on the 10.218 acre site and not for the 1.62
acres that is proposed to be rezoned. The future 24,000 square feet office building is proposed to
be developed within the existing M-2 zoned area of the property, as evidenced on Exhibit A-3:
Proposed Building Layout, of the Impact Analysis Package. Therefore, the Health Department will
be required to review and approve a site development plan for additional office space when this
document is filed with Frederick County.
4) Potential Impacts
The impact analysis describes the traffic, sewage disposal, and drainage impacts associated with the
build -out of the proposed office building. The applicant plans to utilize the proposed 1.62 acres to
provide for uses accessory to the office building such as parking and maneuvering areas, employee
picnic areas, and structures needed to store grounds -keeping equipment and other maintenance
equipment. Staff believes that the proposed use of the 1.62 acres will not create any significant
additional impacts for this site.
5) Impact Statement
The applicant has proffered that the 1.62 acre site will be utilized for uses accessory to the proposed
office building, and has proffered out the majority of the uses currently permitted in the M-1, Light
Industrial District, and the M-2, Industrial General District. Staff determined that it would not be
necessary to run the County's Impact Model for this application due to the insignificance of its
impact.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR „11/20/96 PC MEETING: Approval.
October 11, 1996
Painter -Lewis, P.L.C.
24 E. Piccadilly St.
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Ref Valley Proteins Rezoning
Dear Mr. Lewis,
I met with the Board of Directors, of the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue
Company, on Thursday, October 14, 1996. The re -zoning request of Valley Proteins was
discussed, and the Board stated that they have no questions on this request, and that the
proffer submittal is satisfactory to them.
It should be noted that the procedure for the proffers requires the proffer monies to be paid
to the County of Frederick, and the County will then forward those monies to the Fire
Company to be used for capital improvement costs.
Should you need anything further on this application, please do not hesitate to concact me.
Sincerely,
DouasKiracofe
Fire Marshal
cc: Elwood Patterson, President Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue
file
168
REZONING #007-98 PIN: 41—A-18
Valley Proteins, Inc,
98A
O 2
96A
w
7
� 3
1.
Q 4 ZB
9�
SA 9 4 5 BA
8 44 5A
1
56
as
O
x
70 8 BC
79
80
81
82
�
x qa
19
14/ 8D
7
mw
112E
15 93A
93
ate'
112
6
HS
� B8C v'
Q
83
Big
,� N4 �,
ID
Sn A
84 • 1 • / 25 3
7,
17 8? '4W
/
?BO
/f�
1 124
I
A 28A
18M dT 0 �C`
298
.
-- dw m1 'Yi "''' /
Jr '"'ti
I
7s9G t
29C
21 __ ® // e %
158
168
REZONING #007-98 PIN: 41—A-18
Valley Proteins, Inc,
1.
168
REZONING #007-98 PIN: 41—A-18
Valley Proteins, Inc,
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office
of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: p i µ-t L- �,� 5 -p L. e. Telephone: x:�, 4a --j 3- -1
Address:
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name: 1�{...L.0 �)�ke-Lczh ttk— Telephone: 454o-017-7
,Scyo
Address: i A"A "=L. -I LP
�1 L P-Jc atZ v �t Z 0�,c7
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: Ort (.�w� S Telephone: -7
P Squ z2. -y3,7
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map � A- l 1 Agency Comments
Plat 0 Fees
Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement ✓
Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement
o NOV1996
11 RECEIVED �.
c� AEPT OF PLANNlNQ
AMP 0EVEICFmi
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:
LJ
��t✓� �z�� s�
6. Current Use of the Property: QrGYLtc�rc.�L
7. Adjoining Property:
� z8
1-A-2-1
1.4 A -
IM
Awe --Q- V-QVa--&s}L
A:!�QICyVTyia4M _
6-cCMW2M,t,sRcz
tL A
IZA,
M-7- _.
�LA
X? -►4
S. Location: The property is located at (give exact Iocation based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
lel u��1 OF- 7.d Z0 foVO U G
12
Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact abodel, it is necessary for the
applicant to provide -information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the
planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning
District as described on Page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number ( - A-19;,
. Magisterial: 16, t �L,
Fire Service:
Rescue Service: �Z�k,-�> E4, `L
High School:
Middle School:
EIementary School:
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
Acres
Current Zonin
Zoning Requested
l • (� z
TLIa.
t..l - Z.
1
Total acreage
to be rezoned
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning
proposed :
Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family:
Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms:
Office:
Retail:
Restaurant:
13
Service Station:
Manufacturing:
Warehouse:
Other:
rkgl-� (Df f J—�bto r. Ole
12. SOMWC
I (we), the wAwraped.do hereby r Wlymake men and petition the Frederick
Coag Board of Supervisarsto amend the zoning and to change the zoning mw
of Frederick Caaa, Virginia. I (we) authorize Ftndakk Cagy officials to seta the
rwaty for $be
! (we) uridaesta mm du sign issued wbea this applicadon is submined must be pbtced at
the 6omtpsoperq Iiaa at least se -m days prior to the Flaming Commission public bearing
sad the Booed of Supervisors' public !tearing and maintained so as to be visible from dw
wed rfgfst-of-w" um l the bsarim
I (we) hereby cwt4 that this application and its se+aompaay►ing mataials are tare and
accurate to the best of my (out) Imwwkdge.
Applies#
owner(s).
DwAa(s):
14
Daae: Z7-
-
Dam-
Date:
Dam. J lS 1
Date
TOTAL P.02
Adjoining Property Owners .
Rezoning
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property
abutting the requested property on the sid'e'or rear or any property directly across a public
right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The
applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the
parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of
Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County
Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street.
Name and Property Identification Number
Name 13AKER Au-E.�i F,
Proper T 41 - A -1-2--
Name
ZName Rosezr- P . Laa-soj
Procerry r 41 - A - 13
Name K1,4 6A -LL- 'DA,,.,, zL- ']E>. Se .
Prover 4.1 - A - I to
J�Na,ie Fe,eSro erry 1 ¢1 - A - 1-7
Name RuDo1-v1 A . in/14"LIE0
Property = 41 - A - Zo , 40 - A - S 3
Name ,NCw,0S17z1z- 'CENb0z1NV. Co
Prover= 41-A-ZS;Z4� Z -7i G3; (05
Name 1" P"CIFce 161LJ-y 1►{oK�s ` ('..moo`
Prover 1 +I -A -7-!E)
Name
Prooer =
Name
Proper =
Name
Prooem =
15
Address
q89 Yqu.� V�� DQ��c
9(c-1
VA Z
S30 0,:!5 $cnAL L. �
k/I N C14etrt� VA- ZZ 0 3
Z81 OLD (3eTw,-L 4,,.�
W1 +.,c 4QST0- , \//k ZZCo03
402_ HA -PL -C- Srz0-:-r-
L�l, VA ZZ�D 1
P. O . Sox 3 5 -5 -B&B
/I I
C,10 CAZZL
1443 D ,cwt, 4,x-LoL.) lZo Ao
h/1Ncw-iSS� VA ZZ4ao3
PROFFER STATEMENT
PARCEL ID 41 ((A)) 18
INTRODUCTION
Business offices for Valley Proteins, Inc. are -currently located on Parcel 41-A-18, a 165 acre
parcel which has 10.218 acres spot zoned M-2:INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT.
Operations which occur at this site are general office. Valley Proteins, Inc. (owner) seeks the
rezoning of an additional 1.62 acres ort, the parcel to accommodate the construction of uses
accessory to the office. The new building will be located immediately north of the existing office
building. The rezoning is necessary to allow the owner to expand and enhance the current office
operations. Current development plans for a new office building call for the construction of a
single story, 16,000 square foot facility with potential expansion to 24,000 square feet. Site
development and building plans will be accomplished in accordance with the performance
standards of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The =owner is willing to proffer certain
limits on the permitted uses of the land with respect to development.
Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned
applicant proffers that in the event that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County shall
approve Rezoning Application # 007-96 for the rezoning of 1.62 acres on Parcel 41-A-18
from RA to M-2, development of this particular 1.62 acres will be in conformity with the terms
and conditions set forth in this document. These terms and conditions may be subsequently
amended or revised by the owner of the property with permission from the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors in accordance with Frederick County codes. These proffers shall be binding,
on the owner and their legal successors or assigns.
PROFFERS
1. The owner will limit the use of the 1.62 acres to accessory to or support uses for the
proposed office. These uses will include but not be limited to such uses as vehicle
parking and maneuvering, material storage, utility support structures, etc.
2. The owner will not seek to develop on the subject 1.62 acres any of the permitted uses
listed under Chapter 165-82, Article X, Sections D and E of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance with the exception of the following:
-Communication facilities and offices, including telephone, radio, television and other
communications
-Electric, gas and other utility facilities and offices and trucking and warehousing
excluding the following: Sanitary services
-Business services
-Vocational schools
-Business associations
-Professional membership organizations
-Labor unions and similar labor organizations
-Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services
-General business offices, including corporate, government, or other offices not
providing services to the general public on a regular basis as the primary use
-Public buildings
PROFFER STATEMENT
PARCEL ID 41 ((A)).18
-Public utility distribution facilities
-Business signs -`
-Directional signs
•Building entrance signs
-Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses
'Parks
-Regional criminal justice, enforcement and detention facilities for Frederick County,
Clarke County and the City of Winchester
-Truck or fleet maintenance facilities
The conditions proffered above shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns,
and successors in the interest of the owner. In the event ghat the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors grant this rezoning and accepts these proffers, then these proffers shall apply to the
land rezoned in addition to the other requirements of the Frederick County Code.
Submitted By:
Valley Proteins, Inc.
Geral Smith, .
Date:
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7th day of November, 1996 by
Gerald Smith, Jr., President, Valley Proteins, Inc.
My commission expires on__ -April 30, '1998
PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS tel.: (540)662-5792
302 South Braddock Street - Suite 200 fax.: (540)662-5793
IIV. h
inc ester, VA 22601
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
A PROPOSED REZONING
for
PARCEL ID - 41 ((A)) 18
Gainesboro District
Frederick County, Virginia
November 6, 1996
Prepared for: Mr. Gerald Smith, Jr.
VALLEY PROTEINS, INC.
1444 Indian Hollow Road
Winchester, Virginia 22603
Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
302 South Braddock Street- Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Tel.: (540)722-9377 b coO'erA
Job Number: 9607002 -s-
Ln
a
Q 1Jl
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATE' INT
PARCEL ID 41 ((A)) 18
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
pale
i.
INTRODUCTION
I
A.
SITE SUITABILITY
I
B.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
2
C.
TRAFFIC
3
D.
SEWAGE CONVEYENCE AND TREATMENT
3
E.
WATER SUPPLY
3
F.
DRAINAGE
4
G.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
4
H.
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
4
1.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
4
J.
ENVIRONMENT
5
K.
OTHER IMPACTS
5
APPENDIX
6
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATE- 7NT
PARCEL ID 41 ((A)) 18
L INTRODUCTION
Business offices for Valley Proteins, Inc. are currently located on a tract which has
approximatley 10.218 acres spot zoned M-2. Operations which occur at this site are strictly
general office. Valley Proteins, Inc. (owner) intends to seek the rezoning of additional acreage on
the parcel to accommodate the construction of a new office building. The new building will be
located immediately north of the existing office building. The rezoning is necessary to allow the
owner to expand and enhance the current office operations. Current development plans for a new
office building call for the construction of a single story, 16,000 square foot facility which can be
expanded to 24,000 square feet. The proposed building will be constructed on existing M-2
zoned land. However, additional land is required to be rezoned to M-2 to accommodate uses
accessory to the office. Site development and building plans•will be accomplished in accordance
with the performance standards of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
According to the Frederick County real estate records, the subject parcel contains 165 acres. It is
located on Indian Hollow Road, Route 679 at its intersection with Dicks Hollow Road, Route
608. The parcel is currently zoned RA:RURAL AREA DISTRICT with 10.218 acres zoned M-2.
This same property is designated in the County of Frederick, VA Tax Parcel 41-A-18, and is in
the name of Winchester Rendering, Inc. The zoning proposed for an additionsl 1.62 acres of the
parcel is M-2:INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT. The rezoning of this 1.62 acres would
result in a total acreage zoned M-2 of approximatley 11.83 acres (the site).
The intended purpose for the rezoning would be to allow the construction of the office building,
parking and maneuvering space and accessory uses. For this reason, the owner is willing to
proffer certain limits on the permitted uses of the land with respect to development. Please refer
to the attached Proffer Statement.
A. SITE SUITABILITY
The Valley Proteins rendering operation is located on several parcels located adjacent to parcel
41-A-18. The present use of the remainder of the 165 acre parcel is agricultural. Portions of
Parcel 41-A-18 are used for spray irrigation fields where effluent from the rendering plant
treatment works is routinely applied. The site is well suited for limited development of the type
described above. Spray irrigation fields are located approximately 1200 feet from the proposed
location of the office building. The building site is gently sloping.The current office operations
for Valley Proteins, Inc. is housed in a 6,400 square foot building on land which directly abuts
the site. It is located at the intesection of Routes 608 and 679. All employees from this facility
will move to the proposed office. The use for the current facility is planned as record storage.
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Boundary and
Floodway Maps, none of the parcel is within an area designated as 100 year flood boundary.
page 1
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATF ?NT
PARCEL ID 41 ((A)) 18
WETLANDS
The site drains directly. -to the west toward an unnamed tributary of Hogue Creek. None of the
site appears to be poorly drained. No hydric soils or hydric plants which would indicate the
presence of wetlands were observed on the site. There are apparent wetlands areas on other
portions of the parcel. These wetlands will not be disturbed in conjuction with construction
anticipated to occur on the site. . .
STEEP SLOPES
The property generally slopes to the west. The proposed building site consists mainly of a gently
sloping ridge. Slopes at the building site are 1-3%. Steep slopes (slopes exceeding 15%) exist
around the perimeter of the building site, in the location of the proposed storm water mangement
pond, and in the area of the proposed access road.
MATURE WOODLANDS
Historically, the site has been used for agricultural purposes. Currently the site is pasture land.
The site has been cleared of woodlands with the exception of a strip of second growth woods
along the east boundary of the site. These woods contain such canopy species as white oak and
black cherry. Understory species consist of Locust and Red Bud. This wooded area will be
preserved to the extent practicable and would remain intact as a result of setback requirements in
accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance for the proposed M-2 zoning.
SOILS
According to the USDA Soil Conservation Service soil survey for Frederick County, the soils on
the site are Berks channery silt loams (1C). This soil is not considered prime farmland. Prime
farmland is defined as the land best suited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed
crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce a sustained
high yield of crops while using acceptable farming methods. The Unified soil classifications are
GM, ML, GC, SC and SM. Weathered bedrock can be expected at relatively shallow depths
around 30 inches below the ground surface. _
B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The site to be rezoned is bordered on the north, east and west by property owned by Winchester
Rendering, Inc. All of this property is zoned RA and used for agricultural purposes. To the south
of the site is the location of the existing office building. The office is situated on M-2 zoning. It
also fronts on Indian Hollow Road, Route 679. Across Indian Hollow Road is tract 41-A-28,
which is zoned RA and used for residential purposes. No adverse impacts from the proposed
development of the site are anticipated.
page 2
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATF- ?NT
PARCEL ID 41 ((A)) 18
C. TRAFFIC
When the proposed facility is fully occupied, the maximum number of trips generated by the site
will likely increase from the present volume.
For the purposes of this report, we will use the figures in the ITE Manual associated with a
25,000 square foot facility. According to ITE Trip Generation figures for the General Office
Building category, the average trip generation per 1000 square feet on a weekday is 19.72. The
average estimated daily trip generation for the proposed development is 493 vehicle trip ends.
The average trip generation at the A.M. peak hour is 65. The average trip generation at the P.M.
peak hour is 67.
Traffic will enter and leave the property via an entrance proposed to be located in alignment with
Route 608. Further analysis of the traffic conditions and final recommendations for road
improvements will come from the Virginia Department of Transportation at the time of Site Plan
review.
D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
There are currently no public sewerage facilities available in the area. Sewage disposal for the
existing office building is achieved by use of conventional subsurface absorption fields. Recent
discussions with the Health Department indicate that the new office building will require
additional sewage treatment facilities. The Soil Survey of Frederick County indicates that the on
site soils can make the installation of septic tank absorption fields difficult.
The proposed building addition will require an increase in the treatment capacity of the present
septic tank/drainfield system. Options for providing additional treatment capacity include:
• finding additional drainfield area
• installing on site treatment followed by enhanced pressure subsurface disposal
• installing on site treatment followed by effluent disposal in an existing holding pond on the
parcel
The determination of the best option for additional treatment capacity will include the
establishment of future capacity needs which will be based on the maximum number of
employees likely to occupy the offices at the site. A treatment system will have to be designed
and approved by the Health Department and the Department of Environmental Quality at the
time of Site Plan review.
E. WATER SUPPLY
There is currently no public potable water service in the area. Potable water is supplied by an
existing private well. The total daily expected water use is based on a demand of 15 to 20 gallons
per day per employee. Additional demand may come from any fire suppression system required
to be installed in the proposed building. Further analysis of the water supply system and final
requirements for any upgrades will come from the Health Department at the time of Site Plan
review.
page 3
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATF' ?NT
PARCEL ID 41 ((A)) 18
F. DRAINAGE
An increase in storm water runoff can be expected with any development on the parcel. Storm
water management will be provided in accordance with the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165.
The site will be graded to drain to a storm water detention pond located in a swale on the west
side of the site. Drainage izom this pond flows to an existing culvert at Route 679.
G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The execution of preliminary plans.for the parcel will result in minimal increase in solid waste
generation. The nearest solid waste transfer facility is located approximately 3.5 miles to the
south on Route 809 -McFarland Road. No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be
required for the proposed development. The amount of solid -waste generated by the development
can be estimated based on one pound per day per employee. Tipping fees are $35.00 per ton.
Collection fees are $25.00 per ton. The annual cost projected to meet waste disposal needs can be
estimated by the assuming that the office will support a projected employee population of 75:
cost = cost per ton of waste x tonnage
$821.25 = $60.00 x 75 x (1/2000) x 365
H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
The site contains no known historic sites or structures as listed on the Virginia Landmarks
Register and the National Register. According to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan
Battlefield inventory, the property lies outside the commonly accepted limits of the major civil
war battles. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report lists six historically significant sites and
structures within approximately one mile of the site. Please refer to Exhibit A-4.
Poor House
(99)
North Mountain Pines
(591)
Yeakley-Unger House
(1500)
Old Bethel United Methodist Church
(1501)
Bethel Grange Cemetery
(1503)
Old Home Orchard
(1504)
I. EMERGENCY SERVICES
The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company No.
15 located approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast of the property on Route 50. No additional
fire and rescue facilities will be required for the area proposed to be rezoned.
page 4
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATE ?NT
PARCEL ID 41 ((A)) 18
J. ENVIRONMENT
There are no significant environmental features on the subject property. Construction of
buildings and associated infrastructure using accepted engineering and construction practices will
pose no tlu-eat to groundwater, surface water or air quality.
K. OTHER IMPACTS
Interviews with county staff indicate that no additional impacts are required to be addressed.
page 5
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATE' ,.NT
PARCEL ID 41 ((A)) 18
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
APPENDIX
item
EXHIBIT A -1 -SITE LOCATION
I
EXHIBIT A -2 -PROPERTY MAP
2
EXHIBIT A -3 -PROPOSED BUILDING LAYOUT
3
EXHIBIT A -4 -HISTORIC STRUCTURES
4
EXHIBIT A -5 -CURRENT TAX STATEMENT
5
PROFFER STATEMENT
6
pale 6
'��•l. J. �� / IIl �'_� �1r 9or7 .��.I / ./�:�" �, �;r�/_`�;j\,' (� / � / .,;jam -� / J, 'fl.( �1 `t
�' • �„\'1 651 .) i /( -` ))' (l1 . II(!r r / ! •- ', / I):� - �� ,/ . ' T' IP �l'. (( ; •,,
i�). '. \ , �(1I�-1•�_[il 1• _�: ,/t\?� '('(I(. '," -\I _' J •F'.( ,�q.; �i II � �� ,` II( If� �`,1��1i r(, ,
/ •w:� y�' •- =Jrc \`�J(��-J ` .�• l`_ i i.'1., (/ti Vii- '. (I. 1 , \. o,\ ! _ ((( ' > J , A �'.. / l
./-�, /� • - t) _/: A/�(�]. \'�\ _ ,rte_ " 'l' r _.i• 1. i. /S
r,/ 5SE �� °r9,/ j ` �' � 1r/r''' P' Ir •�,// )!�I) i'„ t �� r _/ '-�• � ��C'>( //, /r'.j; //'.
`•. / ,.IFi i j 1l({, � �:� 1. i) �;•. ;050 ;1 '/�'/'� �- _',;j� -."Ir j�r �/•Yr { .J - ) � .�� r/,9c}�y /I)L/�1� Il.
`) J !` -_ - t���Y � � i��-'-" �!i /�/ ':S 'I,• '.'( f�. • `� /, �9� /i! I ri •( - �! 1 i/%' � ti) r iJ1 /
���� ," '1 ;�` � � 'S_(>((r( �.1Z � fr I ' � ��'�, �� K6�;e6etiel ,/ A^�•.
-�.- 1 �� 1( \`a' — - �:�� -- , 11;^\\ (\ !.0 < `•C..\ !: i_ ,; -`t'"-('=C �r -c•_ , ; ��l/ :1 • ' • 14C') II I\4 ,\'C
let ,� � i � t�\ D �',�'`!•. •8'�ih�t"Gra\
VY
! �`�, � ,�/,•��� \ !. �`��j'�ll��.III• Irf!' ll ��:��� ��/ �71. ,' � �i/Ji� f•. r//�l�``I�7 •� ty ,1•t,
(
/ x.950
_ --..,(C c l=�) a" �l%l /�. �) � ��- •7,/' � �� 1 ' 1 P�`� a �(. :, -) \�` `till.�.._. • „� f
C_.,) (( , (''�,` r _ �•: i ` , I 1 r, `.r.. .,ia•
r"� f -.�� n •max �• ( 1 ` �,l�l t ���`J(\\'� lr� •'/ �' \`� .° \'� --_� � f '
/;'
(�af9
C% 'r. � l /,% "��fi I ��ji� (.p • .zl�`I '., `_ � � ; 1 � ` r 0�7^ ��) • rll -,�7/' (/ ��)
pring
� :��•� 1�}� l� --1t E ; �� Jas � `=� a -')J � - �
�,: •, jam_ . � ,,, �_ � , ,�:: - ,.. r� , . t •. ;� , .;�, ; °0 09�, •, , ., ;
f 714
(s% ( 1.IF
y_ '�:>:f'• = l •- 900
, �- �= ,.�� _ ;i ;�;(� �' • ASN �'-�° •�>>> ''1 I • ' �
llvor -V
Scale 1" 2000 ft
SITE LOCATION
VALLEY PROTEINS, INC. PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT EXHIBIT A-1
24 EAST PICCADILLY STREET
21AIJG96 WINCHESTER, VA 22601
PROJECT NO. 9607002
1 ,
fro
i�o4dar` Op+O,�+,e,� :•ice`, a+�.',6•
14
. Off.*°' •;,�. J.�. f'• ' •.t�+;,�' „ ' �, ••`'�
CO ,� •.• • ,� ,..�
1
• s
v
17
U7N
18
451-662
See 20
- 1
81
X ?
fir •. }. H rKa rY'jX ♦• R<.;•'.,.).' _i .A>`''A`: 'ti V
' >. ,: ,.:}.Y' ,j)).. ,ra,�an CiS%'Y,::'YK':..(iti' <X:ti>• 0�
-
�(OG
4b V
+,i,'y;}-�Kh;�. }.Jc a '�'��j'•'..tifi 1"C>'lw:�! V
l r: �tiA
636
34 249-108 �/ 5 6
2
s�q 62E
34AA o
iZ-
x,rY
n.i
,9
IffiLes
a
0M PA—TO
rPROIPOE'D BUILDING
M-2 = '0,218 ACRES
1 Y 2 Story Beck /
1444 x
I
I I�
INDIAN HOLLOW ROAD
W
P R 0 P
E U I L D N
LAY0_UT
VALLEY PROTEINS.
I%IP ACT AN_ L) SIS
INC.
ST, -VEN"
E,XH S I A —
P,���,� I�,Q—' �1,11rti P i
2400796
NCT r0 SCIL�
_ .
_��-,-J-1 7H
----
North Mountain Pines
Yeakley-Unger I -louse
Old Bethel United Methodist Church
Bethel Grange Cemetery
N Old Home Orchard
Scale 1" = 2000 ft
(99)
(59 l )
(1500)
(1501)
(1503)
(1504)
RURAL LANDMARKS SURVEY
VALLEY PROTEINS,PAINTER—LEWIS, P,L.C.
IMPACT ANALYSIS STA
TEMENT EXHIBIT A-4
21AU096 24 EAST PICCADILLY STREET
PROJECT No, 9607002 WINCHESTER, VA 22601
GviN�".yE•S1"E,Q •;
ZONEp E,Q/n/G fOMPgNY
G ZO. Oh •
�a
5. ZO 7 ACAPES
TQ 9E ZONED w = Z
�i�D,opsE-�
It
0
as .
478. oG.
W
s
a o CIJ,�,� f/1�
T
r47
d. ZONEO M •Z
ALTIU
czgmErATLw N
5417-3 (a)96S
�.
541h3 jWft �4
�PDUTE
_..........._.. F
a /• ZO' 33"
Q /Z80. Z7'
A 3O. o0
r /5. 00 '
(g
O
1
04,4 r OF
.4 00/? r/ON OF rflE Z,441,0 OF
���'EP.4.4�E0 FO,P .PEZONiiyG ,QppL�O.4r/ON>
W /NC14E5 TER 9e1VDEW11V6 CO., /ArC:
GA/NES20 ?C D/ST ?/C; F�EOE P/� <O61N T y ✓„
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: Self -Service Storage Facility Amendments
DATE: November 4, 1996
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) received a request to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to allow self-service storage operations in the M-1, Light Industrial
District. The DRRS considered this issue during their August meeting and felt that the use would
be appropriate provided that the existing performance standards were revised. The DRRS
directed staff to work with representatives of the Industrial Parks Association and self-service
storage facility owners to accomplish this task. Staff completed work with each group and
forwarded the proposed revisions to the DRRS for consideration during their October meeting.
The DRRS recommended that the proposed amendments be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors for approval.
Included with this memorandum is the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for review
by the Planning Commission. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider the proposed
amendments and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester. Virginia 22601-5000
SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY AMENDMENTS
165-82. District use regulations.
D) M1, Light Industrial District.
PIRTM-W;
storage facilities ----
165-44. Self-service storage facilities.
Where allowed, self-service storage facilities shall meet the following requirements:
A) Self-service storage facility operations shall be permitted as a primary or accessory use in all
zoning districts in which they are permitted.
B) All parking areas, travel aisles, and maneuvering areas associated with the self-service storage
facility operations shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or similar material to provide a
durable hard surface.
C) Buildings are permitted that provide interior and exterior accessible units. Individual units
within the self-service storage building shall not exceed five -hundred (500) square feet in area.
D) Minimum building spacing shall be thirty (30) feet apart. Loading areas shall be delineated
to ensure that adequate travel aisles are maintained between buildings.
E) Recreational vehicles and boats shall be permitted to be stored within completely enclosed
areas of the self-service storage facility provided that the storage area is separate from the
parking areas and travel aisles, and is depicted on the approved site development plan. Areas
utilized for this purpose shall be exempt from the surface requirements specified under section
165-44(B).
F) Self-service storage facilities shall meet the following landscaping or screening requirements:
(1) Facilities located in the B-2, Business General District shall be completely screened
around the perimeter of the property by a double row of evergreen trees that are
staggered and planted a minimum of eight (8) feet off center, and are a minimum of
six (6) feet in height when planted.
F) Self-service storage facilities shall meet the following landscaping or screening requirements
(continued):
(2) Facilities located in the B-3, Industrial Transition District, or the M-1, Light Industrial
District, shall be required to landscape the yard area within the front yard setback to
provide for a double row of evergreen trees that are staggered and planted a minimum
of eight (S) feet off center. The side and rear yards shall be la a row
of evergreen or deciduous trees that are planted minimum of twenty (40) feet ff
center. All trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet i eig t at t e anting.
hr►c..7C1'�v rn
(3) Facilities located on parcels that are within a master planned industrial park or office
park shall be required to landscape the perimeter of the facility with a single row of
evergreen or deciduous trees that are planted a 'nimum f forty (40) feet off center.
All trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in heig t at the time of planting.
"�i&►qV-1
(4) The required planting of all trees described under subsection F shall occur in an area
that is between the adjoining property boundary line and the placement of security
fencing. The installation of anopaque wall or ence hat is a minimum of six feet in
height may substitute for required� landscaped areas in all zoning districts.
G) Self-service storage facility operations shall be designed to accommodate the storage of
residential, commercial, and industrial items, excluding hazardous, toxic, and explosive
materials. No use, sale, repair, or activity other than storage shall be permitted to occur in
self-service storage facility operations. A copy of the lease agreement which describes the
requirements of this subsection shall be approved in conjunction with the site development
plan for the self-service storage facility operation.
P/C REVIEW: 11-20-96
BOS REVIEW: 12-11-96
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #007-96
WOODSIDE HH
LOCATION: This property is located on the west side of Double Church Road (Rt. 641), south
of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) intersection.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 86-A-21
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance); present use:
vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North:
RP, Residential Performance District
South:
RA, Rural Areas District
East:
RA, Rural Areas District
West:
RA, Rural Areas District
T and iicn.
Residential
Residential; Agricultural; Vacant
Residential
Residential; Agricultural; Vacant
PROPOSED USE: Single-family detached cluster residential lots
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept, of Transportation: See attached letter from R. B. Childress dated
October 16, 1996.
Sanitation ,Authority: No comments.
Inspections Dem: No comment at this time. Will review lots at the time of subdivision
review.
Fire Marshal: No comments.
Parks & Recreation: Development appears to meet open space requirements. No
recreational facilities are required.
County Engineer: The preliminary master plan as dated July 12, 1996 is approved as
submitted. The stormwater management pond located immediately downstream of Twig
Court should be designed to accommodate the additional storm flows from Woodside I
that was not addressed in the original stormwater plan.
Planning and Zoning:
197MM66•
Rezoning Application #006-95 for Woodside II Estates was presented to the Planning
Commission on December 6, 1995. The Planning Commission recommended denial of
this application due concerns related to the existing condition of Double Church Road
(Route 641).
The Board of Supervisors considered the rezoning application on February 13, 1996. The
Board tabled this application because the applicant had not received all information from
VDOT necessary to address the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. The
Board considered this application again on June 12, 1996 and approved the rezoning
application with proffers.
The applicant proposes to develop 80 single-family detached cluster residential lots on
31.57 acres. This creates an overall gross density of 2.53 dwelling units per acre. This
density is consistent with statements made in the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive
Plan, and is less than the permitted gross density for parcels that are between 10 and 100
acres in size.
Single-family detached cluster residential developments are required to provide open
space; however, recreational amenities are not required. The Zoning Ordinance permits
individual lots to be less than 10,000 square feet, provided that the land that is removed
from the lots is added to the required common open space. The master development plan
calls for an additional .03 acres or 1,300 square feet of land to be placed in common open
space; therefore, the majority of the lots will be 10,000 square feet in size.
1) Road Efficiency Buffer
Double Church Road (Route 641) is identified as a major collector road on the VDOT
Functional Classification Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires
all residential structures to be separated from major collector roads through the provision
of a road efficiency buffer. The proposed master plan needs to include the type of buffer
that will be utilized to meet this requirement, as well as provide the location and type of
plantings that will be utilized. The open space areas in front of Twig Court and Pinecone
Court will not allow for the development of this buffer. The area in front of Twig Court
becomes more complicated, as a proposed storm water management facility will be
constructed. Care should be taken regarding the allowance of buffer areas within building
lots. This creates a situation in which future property owners are limited in the use of their
property.
2) Street Layout
The master development plan proposes to provide a street connection to the Racey tract.
Currently, a portion of this tract is within the Urban Development Area, and the entire
tract is within the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District. Staff believes
that it is good planning to provide for a future connection at this time. This will provide
for the continuation of the street onto the adjoining property should the owner, or a future
property owner receive future approval for development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 11-20-96 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Approval, provided that the applicant addresses all review agency and staff comments, as well as
all concerns of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
• v �4Gawtt
CommONWEALTH o f VTC y I . c1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINBURG RESWENCY
CAM R. GEiIR 14¢31 OLD VALLEY PACE
COMMUMM P.O. BOX 2M WMJAAY H. SUSHUAN, P.E.
®iNBUR(L VA 22824-0a8 AESt 00 ENGwEER
TELE (54M 9e&Ww
OX (UM U44aw
October 16,1996
VDOT COi CWIENTS
PRELR�B NARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WOODSIDE, SECTION II
We have no overall objections to this project's preliminary master development
plan. The proposed street layout appears satisfactory. Street widths and pavement
designs will need to be based on this project's projected traffic count; as well as traffic
contributions from the connection to eadsting Barlcwood Drive and the extension of
Branch Court to the northwest
The developer will be responsible for any design, construction, and other related
costs associated with the relocation and improvements to Route 64L This includes
right-of-way acquisitions, utility adjustments, deed preparation, etc.
Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site
plans, drainage calculations, and trip generation data from the LTZ Trip Gena-ativn
hf=u4 Fifth Edition for review. Prior to any construction on the State's right-of-way,
the developer will need to apply bo this office for issuance of the appropriate permits to
cover said work. The permit will require processing fees, surety bond coverage, and
the salary & expenses of a State assigned Inspector.
Signature: 6?11
Pernuts/Subd. Spec Supv.
RBC/rf
xc Mr. S. A. Melnikoff
WE KEEP ViRG;NIA MOVING
A )) 139
140
131 A
�ry Ory B E
C G =
81
H Fair fpx
332-343
21B
726
78
cO�,ykti
80
306-59&
o
22 71 A
21
^m
coCQ- ^�'�O�c
''
71 71 B
cop
Q
'y P
`
21 A ° 3
:ti h rte`
E,
�O
go
A
�.
S
y
OQ SS s@
9
Si �F
v
h�
k� a
K
46
25
26
�i
27
A )) 139
140
131 A
79
79A
�ry Ory B E
C G =
81
H Fair fpx
332-343
21B
726
78
cO�,ykti
80
306-59&
o
22 71 A
79
79A
Location Map for PIN: 86-A-21
MDP #007-96, Woodside II
72B
N
70
21B
726
cO�,ykti
rynk cow
22 71 A
21
^m
coCQ- ^�'�O�c
''
71 71 B
cop
Q
'y P
`
21 A ° 3
:ti h rte`
E,
�O
go
A
�.
S
y
OQ SS s@
9
Si �F
h�
k� a
K
46
25
26
27
Location Map for PIN: 86-A-21
MDP #007-96, Woodside II
Frederick Countv, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Packs e
APPLICATION
XASTER DFVEI:OPMENT P,LAMN
Department of Planning and Development Use Only.
Date application received
1„1(-6 Application #
Complete. Date ofacceptance. A
Incomplete. Date of return. -MIA_
L Project Title :
2. Owner's Name:
3. Applicant
Address:
Phone Number:
4. Design Company:
Address:
Phone Number:
Contact Name:
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
� Goy
l�
r, :F
Page 11 ~ /4,5 9 L 9
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION coned
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. Location of Property:
6. Total Acreage:
t.C-7s P -1-6q( w o)
7. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN):
b) Current Zoning:
C) Present Use: T
d) Proposed Uses: c f 7NM (t:�Z
=i�C E -S7 t -f CYVI
e) Adjoining Property Information:
Property Identification Numbers Property Uses
North 5 -A - NO \(aZ.AtJT 1 A&.
South' - - 2,3 _ I-�;1•.`� t\Z,
East ,c.- . -71 7 i A 7ZA 7 P,7 ►�
West - Pr — 14 , VAir— j -Its
f) Magisterial District: %oCr, J
S. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original Amended _
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master
development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All
required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan
application.
4 L9�6
Signature:
Date:
Pa, -,e 12
Woodside Estates
Adjoining Property Owners
Herbert M. & Patricia Painter _ 86-A-23
914 Double Church Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
Louis F. & Betty R. Stelzi 86 -A -2F
968 Double Church Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
Herbert M. Painter 86 -A -21A
914 Double Church Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
Linwood Ritter 86 -A -21B
746 Double Church Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
Charles S. Carbary 86-A-22
784 Double Church Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
Charles W. Racey 85-A-140
387 Ewings Lane
Stephens City, VA 22655
James L. Bowman 86-A-72
P.O. Box 6
Stephens City, VA 22655
Kenneth E. Wymer 86 -A -72B
731 Double Church Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
Carlton L. Bardes 86 -A -72A
749 Double Church Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
Tim B. & Denise Lynn Thomas 86 -A -71A
Rt. 1 Box 372-B
Stephens City, VA 22655
Marvin Ola White 86-A-71
849 Grim Road
Stephens City, VA 21655
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: . Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I *�
SUBJECT: Draft 1997 Comprehensive Plan
DATE: November 6, 1996
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee.(CPPS) and Staff have completed the bulk
of this year's plan update. As usual, much of the work consists of updating statistical information
such as school enrollment and population figures. We have also made minor editorial corrections
where needed. The most significant addition is the text relating to the Route 11 North Land Use
Plan.
The "proposed actions" portion of the Action Program has also been included. Last month, staff
circulated this list of actions to the CPPB, Commission and Board, and requested that they be
prioritized. This "proposed actions" portion reflects the priorities that were submitted to staff.
There are a few additional items yet to be completed. We hope to have most of the maps updated
to reflect present conditions. In particular, the Land Use Plan for the entire County will be updated
to reflect modifications to the Agricultural District and the Urban Development Area. The map will
also indicate areas that have special land use plans, i.e. Route I 1 North Land Use Plan.
Enclosed is the recommended update. We have only copied those pages with significant changes
for your review. Text that is to be deleted is shown with aSTRf K -E through it and text to be added
is SHADED.
Please contact staff with any questions.
Attachment
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Population and Housing
Growth in Housing
The number of permits issued fbv the construction of new homes has varied dramatically, following
the rise and fall of the national housing market: The numbers of permits issued for new houses
each year rose steadily in the early 1970s, but fluctuated in the middle 1970'x. Starting from 1977,
a steady decline in permits issued occurred reaching a low of only 212 permits in 1982. From 1982
to 1988, permits for new houses increased steadily to an all-time high of 980 permits in 1988.
However, between 1989 and 1992, building permits issued for new residences in the County
declined dramatically (47%) as a result of a recession in the national housing market. By 1992, the
amount of permits issued decreased to a total of 520 permits. The permits issued in 1993, however,
ended this four year decline. Seven hundred and eleven (711) permits were issued for the
construction of new homes in 1993. This total rose slightly in 1994 to seven hundred and thirty two
(732). New home construction permits issued peaked in 1994; figures for 1995 were much lower.
A decline in permits issued was apparent in 1995 when five hundred -seventy (570) permits were
issued.
Figure 4
Building Permits for New Residences
Frederick county, Virginia
1000
800
600 —
B
w 400
200
0--�--�- -T r -
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
Growth in the local economy is a major factor influencing overall growth in Frederick County. The
economies of Frederick County and the City of Winchester are interrelated and economic changes
affect both jurisdictions. There has been a continued growth in local employment in both the City
and County. An additional factor influencing growth in Frederick County has been an increasing
movement of people into the County from the Washington Metropolitan Area. It can be anticipated
that economic growth will continue, thereby supporting continued steady rates of overall growth.
1997 Frederick County 20 ComprehensivePlan
Population and Housin
The population projections can also be used to project the number of new households that will be
created in the County and the number of new dwellings that will be needed. The demand for new
housing will be affected by the extent to which the average number of persons per household
declines. The low household projections use the low population projections and assume that the
average household size will not decrease further. The medium and high household projections use
the medium and high populations projections and assume that the average household size will drop
to 2.7 persons per household by 1995 and to 2.6 persons per household by 2000.
Table 5: Projected New Dwellings Needed (Frederick Countv 1990-20101
New Dwellings Needed Per
Decade
New Dwellings Needed Per
year.
1990-2000 J
2000-2010
19"-2000
2000-2010
Low 3,610
3,257
361
326
Medium 5 866
4,601
587
460
High 6,752
7,443
675
744
ouurce: rreaerick County Department of Planning and Development
The projections suggest that an average of between 260 and 675 housing units will be needed each
year for the next several years. Again, the projected housing need will probably be closer to the
higher projections than to the lower ones. Even the higher projections suggest that annual rates of
housing construction will not need to be as high as in the late 1980's to meet projected demand.
Conclusions
► Population growth continues in Frederick County.
► The average number of persons living in each household has dropped in recent years. This
results in the fact that the number of new dwellings has been growing at a faster rate than
the population.
► The construction of new homes rose to a record high in 1988, then dropped through 1992
when the number began to rise again through 1994. New home construction decreased in
1995.
► Population growth and new residential development has been distributed throughout the
County, but particularly high concentrations of growth have occurred in the Bufflick,`
Fredericktowne, Redbud Run, Senseny, and Cross Junction neighborhoods.
1997 Frederick County 24 ComprehensivePlan
Economy
Employment Trends
The number of employed people living in Frederick County and Winchester has grown in recent
years despite fluctuations following the rise and fall of the national economy. With the exception
of a slight decrease in 1991, employment_ within the private sector has steadily increased over the
past decade by an average of 4.3% per year. This includes both the City of Winchester and
Frederick County. According to the Virginia Employment Commission, total employment within
the private sector was 21,617 in 1983. By 1993, the labor force had increased to 31,980.
Manufacturing continues to play a major role in Frederick County's economy. Employment within
manufacturing has accounted for more than 35% of total private employment in Frederick County
over the past decade. Sixteen percent of the private labor force were employed in retail trade in
1993, and 15% were employed in service related jobs. Jobs related to finance, insurance, and real
estate has experienced the greatest percent increase. In 1983, jobs within this sector accounted for
only .6% of Frederick County's total employment. By 1993, the employment in this sector
increased to 3.6%.
Table 6: Emplovment Trends Within Private Sector (Frpdprielz f niinty nJ W;A%-hf--)
- ---- ---- - ..0 .. uaa.iacJ�c■
SECTOR 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995:1
Winchester -Frederick Total
23,848
27,631
30,244
30,098
31,980
40 042
Agricultural Services
438
517
534
491
634
713
Mining
122
144
172
157
148
155
Contract Construction
1-1-5-52-
2 001
2 304
1,772
1 805
2,033
Manufacturing
7,906
8,962
8,654
8,809
9,679
10,310
Transportation and Utilities
1,251
-1,291
1,317
1,474
1,219
,362
Wholesale Trade
1,770
2,111
2,617
2,222
2,244
..1
2,712
Retail Trade
5,064
6,204
7,399
7,148
7,099
8.071
Finance,Insurance,Real Estate
824
930
944
966
1,017
1,079
Services
4,881
5,467
6,303
7,059
8 135
9,680
Nonclassifiable
40
4
0
0
0
0
Source: Virginia Employment Commission; Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
1997 Frederick County 32 Comprehensive Plan
Econom
retail sales by on tenth of one percentage point. While this amount may seem small, it
translates to nearly $47 million in increased share of sales.
► From 1985 to 1993 private sector employment in Frederick County and Winchester
increased by 40%.
► While Per Capita Income (PCI) has dropped dramatically in other regions, the PCI in
Winchester -Frederick County rose from $18,812 in 1993 to $19,699 in 1994. $i9 -in
Nevertheless, this figure remains below the state average of
$20,883.
► According to the 1990 Census, 77% of workers living in the area worked in the area.
However, the percentage of those commuting to other areas to work is increasing. From
1980 to 1990, the percent of the workforce commuting to northern Virginia increased from
2% to 9%.
► Projections, based on recent population and employment trends and national projections,
suggest that the local economy will continue to grow.
Table 7: Employment Trends Within Private Sector
I SECTOR I ORS t QQ17 logo , nn, ,
Frederick County Total
7,962
-- -
9,163
- -
11,571
=»1
10,060
i -7-7.a
11,515
i�ya
12,788
Agricultural Services
404
450
387
323
473
585
Mining
122
144
172
157
148
155
Contract Construction
1-10-13
1 262
1,1447
1 122
1,126
1 287
Manufacturing
2,473
2,715
3,607
2,908
4,127
4.142
Transportation and Utilities
727
746
841
944
754
840
Wholesale Trade
848
1,034
1,356
937
857
978
Retail Trade
1,168
1,411
1,911
1,869
1,867
1950
Finance,lnsurance,Real Estate
150
163
434
367
418
461
Services
1 042
1,237
1,416
1.433 1
1,745 1
389
Nnneinggiflable
14Z
-1
0
—. y=vyrroerri t,vrrur wsiure, rreaer1CK t-ounry Uepartment of Planning and Development
1997 Frederick County 34 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use
Development within the business corridors should be accomplished .vitt, an understanding of;.he
aesthetics associated with landscaping. Establishing landscape buffers between the road and parking
facilities is important to promote a more pleasant environment. Additionally, the proper landscape
design surrounding parking facilities reduces radiant heat reflection from the parking surface and
lessens the facilities impact on its surroundings. The county should develop landscape guidelines
that achieve more aesthetically pleasing developments.
Conflicts occur when incompatible uses or zoning districts are adjacent to one another. These
conflicts can be addressed by requiring sufficient buffer distances between the incompatible uses.
Screening, in the form of plants, walls, or berms can also be used to block the vision of adjoining
uses or to reduce noise or other impacts. A strip of mature woodland of sufficient depth is a
particularly effective screen which can be relied on to remain with minimal maintenance.
Figure 15
Typical
Preferred
Scree S
114-i
�t; I r
1997 Frederick County 64 Comprehensive Plan
-- Land Use
5ignage
In recent years, the County has worked to minimize the visual impacts that signs have on our
community. Signs should be informational in content and not visually distracting. Business
corridors are typically associated with commerce activities and its related signs. In addressing this
different nature of the business corridors, the County should develop guidelines that contain specific
prov . ions for business corridors.
Signs can affect the character of an area and the value of properties. Excessive numbers of signs
in business areas can make the signs difficult to notice or read and can make highway frontages
appear cluttered and confusing, causing potential traffic hazards.
Issues:
Controls on signs along our primary highways play an important role in establishing
the character of business corridors.
Appropriate measures for buffers and screening are critical.
Route 50 East Corridor
The area included in the Route 50 Est corridor land use plan consists of nearly 3,000 acres. The
corridor extends from the 81 interchange to the eastern edge of the Westview Business Centre, a
distance of 3.6 miles. The corridor study area also extends south to encompass the Winchester
Regional Airport, the Airport Business Park, and surrounding uses. The largest single zoning
category within the study area remains Rural Area (RA) zoning with approximately 1,300 acres.
RA zoning permits general agricultural uses and low density residential development (one unit per
five acres). The bulk of the remaining acreage, roughly 1,000 acres, is presently zoned for retail
office and or industrial uses. Residential Performance (RP) zoning accounts for roughly 550 acres.
RP zoning allows for residential development at a maximum density of up to ten units per acre, with
an average overall density of four units per acre.
Of the three corridors which have had land use plans developed, the Route 50 corridor is the largest
and has the greatest potential for additional commercial growth. Its proximity to the Winchester
Regional Airport, in addition to Interstate 81, make it a highly desirable location for many
commercial uses. Of the nearly 3,000 acres in the corridor study area, roughly 1,400 acres are
vacant. Of this vacant acreage, 550 acres are already zoned for commercial or industrial use. For
this reason, the transportation network within and around the corridor area will be of great
importance.
1997 Frederick County 65 Comprehensive Plan
a
Land Use
direction, through the Abrams Point developiiient and connecting up with Route 658 (Brookland
Lane). The road would then connect with the proposed connection running from Valley Mill Road
across Route 7 to the Winchester Mall site. At the time of this writing, no decision has been made
to incorporate this proposal into the Eastern Road Plan.
Route 11 North Corridor
While a land use plan for the Route I 1 North corridor was not included in the 1993 and 1994
business corridor studies, the County did realize its importance in 1996, and undertook such a study.
The area included in the Route 1 I North land use plan consists of nearly 2,000 acres. The corridor
extends from Interstate 81 Exit 317 north on Route 11 to the Clearbrook community. Interestate 81
establishes the western boundary to the corridor. The eastern boundary essentially follows that of
three drainage basins: Hiatt Run, Hot Run, and Clearbrook Run. Portions of the Stephenson and the
Clearbrook Rural Community Centers are included in the corridor.
The County has identified a shortage of available industrial sites with rail access, a vital element in
recruiting potential industries. As a result, the county initiated a search for potential locations for
such uses. Numerous key areas were identified in Northeastern Frederick County that could be
attractive sites for industrial development with rail access. As a result, the Route I 1 North corridor
was studied.
The County does not feel that additional large scale residential development is appropriate for this
area of the County. On those grounds, new residential development is not proposed.
1997 Frederick County 81 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use
Objectives for the Route 11 North Land Use Plan
g
Land Use
• Discourage industrial uses in close proximity to existing residential uses.
• Encourage industrial uses within planned industrial parks.
• Concentrate industrial uses near transportation systems, including rail and road.
• Concentrate business uses around existing and proposed intersections.
• Discourage spot business and industrial uses along Route 11.
• Promote land uses that are compatible with adjacent existing land uses.
Transportation
• Provide for additional traffic control by proposing signalized intersections.
• Encourage central access points to industrial areas, minimizing new driveways a
intersections with Route 11, 761, 664.
• Encourage the expansion of Route 11 to a four -lane roadway.
• Require connector roads within industrial areas to minimize traffic impacts on Ro
11.
Historical
• Protect rural landmark sites as identified by the Rural Landmark Survey.
• Protect the historic areas and corridor as identified by the Battlefields Network Pla
to the extent practically possible.
Environmental
• Identified environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains and steep slopeand
require compliance with Zoning Ordinance regulations
Public Utilities
• Remove obstacles to the provision of water and sewer service to area.
&u e I I �NTlb,anu Ilse Plan
Future land uses within the Route 11 North area should be sensitive to existing and planned uses.
The plan has been designed to provide the opportunity to develop industrial and business uses in a
well-planned, coordinated manner..
Industrial uses are proposed adjacent to both railroad corridors and the largely undeveloped
1997 Frederick County 82 Comprehensive Plan
Land Ue
southeastern portion of the area. Industrial uses should be developed within master planned
industrial parks. These industrial parks could cater to numerous industrial interests, in a planned
environment. Such uses should be adequatefy screened and buffered from adjacent business and
residential use. Industrial use is discouraged from fronting directly on along Route 11; buffering
and screening should be exercised to mitigate any impacts on Route 11. The industrial use locations
are illustrated in the Route I 1 North Land Use Plan map on page 85 by the blue shading. The area
shaded on the map includes land currently occupied, in addition to undeveloped land.
The development of business uses are encouraged at designated road intersections. Additionally,
the promotion of shared entrances and through connections for parking facilities reduce disruptions
to the main traffic flow. The business use locations are illustrated in the Land Use Plan map by the
orange shading.
Preserving and protecting the existing residential, historic, and significant open space areas within
the study area is encouraged. These areas have not been designated for business and industrial use.
The Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA), located along Route 11 and Milburn Road, has two
purposes.' First, this designation discourages any development along the Milburn Corridor; the
corridor has been identified as a key contributor during the Civil War. Secondly, the DSA would
call for a higher standard of development along Route 11, where residential uses dominate. As the
DSA is a community and historical preservation area, adjacent uses which are not compatible should
be adequately buffered and screened. Development regulations should be reviewed to ensure that
they protect and promote a cohesive community environment within the study area with special
attention to the DSA.
As with all development occurring within Frederick County, the protection of environmental
features continues to be of importance. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) delineate the
location of environmental features where minimal disturbance is permitted. The ESA is primarily
located in the southern portion of the study area, and contains both floodplains and steep slopes.
Prior to any development, environmental protection requirements will need to be addressed.
As with all development proposals in Frederick County, construction of new collector roads and the
installation of sewer and water within the Route 11 North area would be the responsibility of the
property owners and developers.
Transportation : The use of collector roads has been proposed to channel vehicular traffic to
and from key intersections along Routes 11, 761, and 664, These collector roads would also act as
bypasses to Route 11; traffic generated by the proposed industrial uses would use the collector roads
to gain access to the north and south extremities of the area. This would minimize increased traffic
on Routes 11, 761, and 664. The collector roads would also provide for safer vehicular movement
as vehicles will be accessing the Routes from designated locations.
1997 Frederick County 83 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use
These collector roads are seen as a preferred alternative to permitting an excessive number of
individual business and industrial entrances on Route 11. The location of collector 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 is likely to be required at six proposed key intersections.
Procedures already in place would require that development pay a pro rata share toward the cost of
such facilities.
Route 11 North should be improved to a four -lane facility as traffic increases, as has been previously
proposed by the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS). Presently a three -lane facility, it
is projected that the improvement would require that six feet be obtained from either side of the
existing road right-of-way.
A corridor has been reserved along the proposed alignment of Route 37. This corridor is flanked
on either side by proposed industrial uses, minimizing the impact Route 37 could have on residential
development, and maximizing the potential for an interchange from the industrial uses directly onto
Route 37.
Sewer: Additional residential development is not proposed, nor encouraged, for this area of
the County. Any sewer extension should be designed in a manner to serve existing residential units
within the study area.
The location of sewer mains would depend primarily upon the property owners that initiate sewer
connections (as development occurs, the costs associated with sewer extension are the responsibility
of the developer). It has been determined that the locating of sewer mains along the railroad lines
is possible, but the most effective long-term location for sewer mains is to follow Hiatt Run.
..MI - 1611'.1 _.__'
The present Urban Development Area (UDA) boundary incorporates a small portion of the
southwestern quadrant of the study area. Expansion of the UDA beyond its existing boundary is not
appropriate for this area.
1997 Frederick County 84 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use
Business Corridors Conclusion
Perhaps the most fundamental concept depicted in each of the Corridor Plans are the proposed future
land uses. For the most part, the future land use delineations consist of additional areas of business,
office, and industrial use. An important element of the corridor plans is the creation, or
enhancement, of areas of economic development potential. All aspects of the corridor plans and
policies established in this report, play a role in improving the atmosphere for quality economic
development. ,
At the same time the plans attempt to direct future growth to designated areas, they also set limits
on the expansion of commercial growth along the corridors through the designation of the corridor
boundaries. This too serves to focus the development community on key areas for future
commercial growth. As parcels within the study areas are proposed for rezoning, it will be
incumbent upon the Planning staff, PIanning Commission and Board of Supervisors to ensure that
the development proposed is in keeping with the concepts discussed in this Plan.
One of the primary objectives of the corridor plans is to insure that the commercial development that
does take place within the corridor is of a standard that reflects favorably on the area. Efforts will
need to be taken to follow up on these examples with the creation of actual development regulations
aimed at achieving the desired results. Some steps have already taken place. The County's
Development Review and Regulations Committee has begun working on implementing the
recommendations of the Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce's Report of the
Corridor Appearance Task Force which was completed in January of 1993.
As development takes place along these corridors, it is very important that the County considers the
potential impact on stormwater runoff. Provisions must be considered to protect the County's
watersheds. All of the proposed development along these corridors fall within the Opequon
watershed.
Issues:
Frederick County needs to work with VDOT to insure that adequate traffic modeling
studies are conducted and patterns are analyzed to insure that new intersections and
entrances are adequately designed and constructed.
Intersections and commercial entrances need to meet spacing requirements as
specified in the County Subdivision Ordinance. Current requirements need to be
examined to insure that adequate distances are provided when new entrances are
established Shared entrances should be encouraged or in certain instances,
required.
1997 Frederick County 87 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
As development continues in Frederick County, there is a need to carefully plan for the facilities and
services that will be required. Planned development will effect the expenditures and facilities that
will be needed. It will also effect the location and types of facilities that must be provided.
There is a need to carefully monitor growth and to plan land use and facilities in a coordinated
fashion. This can be accomplished through annual comprehensive planning and capital
improvements planning.
Schools
There are nine elementary schools in Frederick County, an&a tenth currently under construction,
which provide for grades Kindergarten through 5. There are three middle schools in Frederick
County which provide for Grades 6 through 8. James Wood High School and Sherando High
School provide for grades 9 through 12. The Northwest Regional Education Programs (NREP)
provides special education services and Dowell J. Howard Vocational Technical Center provides
vocational education services for high school students and adults.
During the past several decades, student enrollment has increased steadily. In particular, the decade
of the 90's has seen a dramatic increase in student enrollment. In 1990, student enrollment was
8,223 students. In the fall of f995. 1996, student enrollment was 9fr4+ 9,974 students, which
represents a 377- 3.5% increase from +994-, 1995, and an increase of i-,4}8-1,751 students, or i7-!2.
21.3%, since 1990.
In 1996, of the nine elementary schools,-sixfive exceed 90% of capacity: Armel (fO4103%)
Bass -Hoover (96- 100%), Indian Hollow (+% 94%), Middletown (+99 %), Robinson (92"A), and
Redbud Run (90%). Total elementary school enrollment is 93% of capacity.
Continued growth in student enrollment resulted in the opening of Redbud Run Elementary School
in the fall of 1996, renovation and construction of an addition to Senseny Road Elementary School,
and the construction of a new Stonewall Elementary School which will open in the fall of 1997A -s
Middle school enrollment is at 80% 84% of capacity. The completion of classroom additions to
James Wood High School and Sherando High School, and the use of six modular classrooms at
James Wood High School has resulted in increased student capacities. High School enrollment is
88% of capacity.
h
0
High Schoofs begmi dming die f�fl of f 995, mid wifl illcreasu dre capacity Of Mch sChavi to !"25
students when compiecd-
Several schools are experiencing overcrowding due to steadily increasing enrollment to -increased
1997 Frederick County 137 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
enrotlinent and changes in the educational program. To combat this problem, seven schools are
utilizing a total of -2921 modular units. Implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan over the
next several years should help keep pace with increased enrollment and reduce the need for modular
units. to rebafid Stanewaff Efinnentaiy Schooi, ictiovate Seinocny Road Efementruy Schoof,
1997 Frederick County 138 Comprehensive Plan
. Community facifides and Services
{Schools Map}
1997 Frederick County 139 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
Figure 16
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Frederick County
Students
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000 -
2,000�+-
0
66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96
School Year
K-5 6-8 9-12 Total
Source: Frederick County School Board
1110-2151*11016t 101111VVI 111 11 1 11111111111,11 1111..� ... ..
.
.. i
.•
ki
610JIL119jawill. .. .,
E.
The current total enrollment to capacity ratio is -92-0/o89% of capacity. Enrollment meets or exceeds
90% of capacity at eight schoofs- Six schools, and five additional schools meet or exceed 85% of
capacity.
Great care is needed in considering the expansion of school capacity beyond what is needed to deal
with current crowding and what is needed to replace outdated facilities. Enrollment, demographic,
and development trends need to be carefully monitored.
1997 Frederick County 140 Comprehensive Plan
., Community Facilities and Services
TOM.. IA. Q 6 --I i'.a...an:*.. --.7 L�_�_li — r-- "
ma.a:p Gizu i�iii-f/i111AV.Il1 lur V reu('rICK �..oun[!
a`
SCHOOLS Grade Practical 1996-1997
Level Capacity EQroliment
��.r_��rr
% Of
Practical
Capacity
Apple Pie Ride
K-5
67
564
S4%
Armel
K-5
645
664
103%
Bass -Hoover
K-5
735
733
100%
Gainesboro
K-5
260
180
69%
Indian Hollow
K-5
585
547
94%
Middletown
K-5
585
626
107%
Redbud Run
K-5
750
674
90%
Robinson
K-5
'AIR
ego
Qsoi
Sensenv Road
-
K-5
570
489
UJ /U
86%
Tial Elementary
K-5
5,.123
4,746
93M1e
Robert E. Aylor
Middle School
6-8
965
747
77%
Frederick County
Middle School
6-8
845
695
82%
James Wood Middle
6-8
1,000
918
91%
Total Middle
6-8
2,810
Z2W
84%
James Wood High
9-12
1,670
1 483
89%
Sherando High
9-12
1,550
1,357
88%
. Tial High School
9»12
3,221#
21840
880fo
NREP
Ages 2-
21
56
28
50%
Total:
K-12
11,209
9,974
'd9�fo
Source: Frederick County School Board, September 1996
H"6-1997
1997 Frederick County 141 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
Emergency Services
The Frederick County Fire and Rescue System currently consists of ten volunteer fire and rescue
companies. Of these companies, all ten provide Fire Suppression Services, eight provide
Emergency Medical Ambulance Services, and two provide Medical "First Responder" Service. The
County fire and rescue companies are as follows:
Company 11 - Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company
Company 12 - Middletown Fire and Rescue Company
Company 13 - Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company
Company 14 - Gore Fire Company
Company 15 - Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company
Company 16 - Gainesboro Fire and Rescue Company
Company 17 - Star Tannery Fire Company
Company 18 - Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company
Company 19 - North Mountain Fire and Rescue Company
Company 20 - Reynolds Store Fire and Rescue Company
Staffing of fire and rescue stations is accomplished by a combination of volunteers from each
community and a small corp of career personnel employed by Frederick County. The County
currently provides 20 career Fire -Medics who provide coverage for seven of our fire and rescue
stations during weekday hours. The County also employs a full-time director to supervise career
personnel and coordinate the service delivery of our volunteer fire and rescue companies. Two full-
time Fire Marshals perform fire prevention, fire investigation, and public education services.
Future challenges include meeting fire and rescue equipment needs, maintenance and expansion of
fire and rescue stations, increasing the number of dry hydrants in the rural areas, meeting training
and certification requirements, increasing emergency medical service to the Advanced Life Support
level, improving Radio Communication Systems, and developing additional Fire and Rescue
stations where needed.
Recent completion of the Street Address System will now permit the County to upgrade its 911
telephone service to the fully enhanced system. Conversion to E-911 should be implemented within
the next 18 months along with a new consolidated communication center for fire, rescue, and police
services.
In conjunction with the Winchester Regional Airport. Authority and the Greenwood Volunteer Fire
and rescue Company, a plan has been developed to establish a fire -rescue station at the airport. This
station would service growth in the Route 50 East and Route 522 South corridors. It would also
provide "on field" response service to the airport as required by the Federal Aviation Authority
regulations to accommodate future airport expansion.
1997 Frederick County 142 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
Continued growth will undoubtedly lead to the need for additional fire and rescue stations within
the urban area. Locations for future fire station sites should be identified and dedication of sites
should be encouraged at the time of rezonings. Station locations should be determined based on
projected service needs and response time criteria.
Airport
The Winchester Regional Airport is a 338=acre- 362-ai.-M all weather, 24-hour general aviation
airport with a 5,500 foot runway located southeast of the Route 50 interchange of Interstate 81. The
facility currently has 5� 75 tie down spaces, a 12,000 square foot public common hangar, a ten
unit and a 20 -unit T -hangar and four private corporate hangars. These hangars accommodate 103
aircraft, including 14 corporate aircraft, ranging in size from small passenger planes to corporate
jets. Services available include 24-hour U.S. Customs and Immigration.
The Winchester Regional Airport Authority was formed by the Virginia General Assembly on July
1, 1987. The Authority consists of representatives from the City of Winchester, Frederick, Clarke,
Shenandoah, and Warren Counties. Since its formation, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority
has embarked on an extensive airport improvement program to upgrade the facility. Projects
accomplished under this program include updating the master plan and the construction of a runway
extension, new General Aviation Terminal Building, T -hangar and corporate hangars,
FBO/Maintenance hanger, above ground fuel storage facility, and safety areas at each end of the
runway.
Collaborating with Frederick County and the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Authority
has also made improvements to primary access roads to the airport. Sewer and water service has
also been established. To date, more than $-&-210 million dollars has been invested in Airport capital
improvements, equipment, and promotions through Federal, State, and local funding. Capital
improvements have been accomplished in order to comply with federal design standards. A
Precision Instrument Approach is in the process of being implemented to provide better all weather
access to the Airport. This requires acquisition of additional land and navigation easements.
Future
developments include building t -hangers, installing security and perimeter fencing. Land
acquisition will include an area for a Frederick County satellite fire station.
'11
Through the support of the member jurisdictions, the Winchester Regional Airport will continue
1997 Frederick County 143 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
to evolve in a modern first class air transportation facility which will benefit and attract new
industries and commercial business to the area. Future plans include bringing commercial air service
to the airport providing the community alternative modes of transportation.
Handley Library
Library service is provided to Frederick County through the Handley Regional Library
headquartered in Winchester, which serves Winchester, Frederick County, and Clarke County. As
of Septembe, f9S August 1996, there were more than -f8-,66614,820 registered library users from
Frederick County. In fiscal year-i� 1996, Frederick County residents borrowed-h6fr, ,72,.625
items from the Handley Library, the Clarke County Library branch in Berryville, and the
Bookmobile, an increase of over16% 9,9% over the previous year.
The regional system supports education, preschool through post -secondary, by providing assistance
and research materials for projects and papers, and by being open nights, Saturdays, some Sundays,
and during the summer when schools are closed. It is also an important resource for adults seeking
to improve their skills and for introducing preschoolers to books and reading. The library also
provides the business community and the public with information for their research needs as well
as recreational reading.
The current Handley building holds about 100,000 volumes and is filled to capacity. Because of
these space limitations, Handley Library is below state standards in the areas of books per capita,
square footage per capita, seating per capita, periodicals per capita, etc. In addition, parents and
students living at a distance from Winchester find it difficult to drive into the city as well as find
parking near the library.
Based upon a library consultant's study of the community's library needs through the year 2001, the
Handley Regional Library Board formulated a long-range development plan. The first step in that
plan is to build a 34,000 square -foot Frederick County Library in the Freden6tephens City
area with construction to start in 1999. The Library Board is working with a committee of Frederick
County residents to gather public support for their plans and to raise funds to purchase books for the
library.
County Offices
In 1996, the County-begancompleted construction of a 68,000 square foot building adjacent to the
Frederick County Administration Building. Funding for this new building was obtained through the
issuance of a bond. The new construction wi-H- incorporated the existing 32,000 square foot
Frederick County Administration Building, and provided a county government complex totaling
100,000 square feet. Most of the County's departments and agencies-nviii-bare now housed in this
new county government complex in downtown Wincheste . 6.
1997 Frederick Countv 144 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
Refuse Collection, Landfill, and Recycling
Refuse collection service is provided by Frederick County at 12.1-5 refuse collection stations. Nine
-ffi& of these stations consist of hydraulic compactor machines with separable roll -off containers;
the other three -scv= sites consist of front end dumpsters. Currently, the County is in the process
of converting dumpster sites to compactor stations when warranted by tonnage levels.
The County should continue to convert dumpster sites to compactor sites as tonnage increases.
Consolidation of sites during the conversion process is also desirable, when practical.
The Frederick County Landfill is a regional facility that receives refuse from Frederick and Clarke
Counties and the City of Winchester. The landfill is operated by Frederick County as a enterprise
fund and the landfill operation is fee sustaining. The management and planning of landfill operations
is solely the responsibility of Frederick County
Closure of the older section of the landfill, which opened in 1976, was completed in 1994. A new
160 acre tract of adjacent land, purchased in 1986, was opened for landfilling during 1993.
Approximately 90 acres of this tract has been permitted for landfilling under the newly adopted
Subtitle "D" Solid Waste Regulations. Both the close-out of the old section and the construction
of the new section have been carried out in accordance with new state regulations that require much
more sophisticated environmental protection measures, including composite impermeable liners,
a complete leachate collection system, leachate treatment facility, groundwater monitoring and gas
monitoring.
The current landfill was originally estimated to have adequate capacity for 25 years commencing
in October of 1993. The development of a construction debris landfill should extend the life of the
current sanitary landfill approximately eight years, resulting in a life of 33 years. A tract of land
consisting of 109 wooded acres was purchased from Ryland Carper for the future development of
a construction debris landfill. The permitting and design of this new construction debris landfill
was completed in 1996wiff . The County should reevaluate tonnage, revenue,
and expenditure trends every year and set fees accordingly. The County should also continue to
evaluate new technologies for waste reduction that would extend the life of the landfill.
During the 1990's, the County will place, through private contracts, recycled material collection
boxes throughout the County. Most will be located at existing compactor sites.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has mandated that local governments reduce their solid waste
streams by 10% by 1991, 15% by 1993, and 25% by 1995 through recycling efforts. This will
require more intensive and coordinated recycling efforts.
1997 Frederick County 145 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
New developments need to be provided with appropriate means of solid waste collection. Either
private collection or new collection stations should be provided by new developments.
Sewer and Water Facilities
The location of public sewer and water lines determines where urban development will occur. The
Urban Development Area described by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan is roughly the
same as the service areas for public sewer and water. Because sewer and water facility location
determines the location of urban development, great care is needed in planning where such facilities
will be provided. '
The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has the responsibility for the treatment, transmission,
and distribution of potable water and the collection and transmission of wastewater. Most of the
sewer and water mains and laterals in the County are owned, operated, and maintained by the
Sanitation Authority.
Frederick County and the Sanitation Authority have executed a Facilities Planning Agreement
which sets forth procedures for the planning of sewer and water mains in the County. The
agreement includes provisions for adopting a water and sewer facilities plan as a part of the
Comprehensive Plan, specifying the location of mains over eight inches in size. It also includes
provisions for review and update of the plan and for including sewer and water facilities projects
in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan.
The City of Winchester owns and maintains sewer and water lines in portions of the County adjacent
to the City corporate limits. Such lines have been extended into the County following a previous
agreement between the City and the County. A Gravity Flow Sewer Agreement between the City
and the County has been adopted which specifies that either jurisdiction may transmit sewage from
the other jurisdiction to the Opequon Plant if that sewage flows by gravity to the receiving
jurisdiction. This agreement requires that the delivering area be of a minimum size and that
receiving facilities have sufficient capacity. The delivering jurisdiction will be charged for the
service provided by the receiving jurisdiction.
The Winchester -Frederick Service Authority has the responsibility of providing wastewater
treatment for the Sanitation Authority and the City of Winchester. The Service Authority currently
owns the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and the Parkins Mills Plant and the Stephens Rai
PfaQrt and contracts for their operation. The City operates the Opequon Facility and the Sanitation
Authority operates the offic, facilities Parkins Mills.
1997 Frederick County 146 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
Sewage treatment in the County is provided by due. two sewage treatment plants: the Opequon
Water Reclamation Facility, tile stephells Rtni flimit, and the Parkins Mills Plant. The Opequon
Plant serves the Abrams Creek drainage area and surrounding drainage areas east and north of
Winchester, and provides sewage treatment for Winchester. The Parkins Mills plant serves the
upper Opequon Creek, a Wrights Run, and Stephens Run drainage
areas. The Stephens Rua, flimi! . alf P016011 Of the Stephens Rart diainage mea.
The current capacity of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility is 6.25 million gallons per day.
Assuming a constant connection rate of 200 connections per year, the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority has projected there will be sufficient capacity in thL- Opequon Plant through the year 2005.
At an 8% growth rate, capacity is projected to be sufficient through the year 2002. An increase in
the combined flows of the City of Winchester and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority may
exceed the hpdrvlic hydraulic capacity of the Opequon Plant prior to this date.
The Stephens Run zm Parkins Mills Plant serves at, intemonnectionaf system of smen lines the
upper Stephens Run, Wrights Run, and Upper Opequon drainage areas. The combined- rated
capacity of these this plant is 759;666 2.0 million gallons per day. The current average daily flow
of those this plant is about 1.1 million 750,000 gallons per day.
•
.1 r1 •KII•
- ■ • r • ■ .1 r. • • .1 .A -
..
.1 / ' • • •
Mr-111WKIVA1101111.1'
VA411.1tvil 1111 11
.r • •
r • •
"moot.
WQX9141• /• • ./•r • rrI• .•. .• / _•�
.r • .1 • . • • ■ • r
1997 Frederick County 147 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
Figure 17
Total New Connections
Frederick County Virginia
„oo
,000
aao
poo �
Baa
Ooo -
600
300
ri .-j
00 �.._ ..
p7 ss pp pp 01 p2 99 W p6 p6
FI -1 Year
Water So -
1997 Frederick County 148 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
{Sewer and Water Map}
1997 Frederick County 149 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
intentionally left blank
1997 Frederick County 150 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
18: Opequon Treatment Piant; Sewer Flows Versus Ca
0
OWRF FLOW
Flow
❑ FCSA ❑ City
s
Limit
5
a
3
or 50 ts9 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Fiscal Year
Certain portions of the Urban Development Area, such as the Apple Pie Ridge area, may not be
intended to be sewer and water service areas. Rural Community Centers that are outside of the
Urban Development Area may be provided with some form of service, depending on the policies
established for each particular center.
The intention is that additional extensions of sewer and water service will reflect the boundaries of
the Urban Development Area. The extension of mains into areas not included in sewer and water
service areas described by the facilities plan will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
In this way, the County will maintain an orderly process of development. All sewer and water
mains extended should be publicly owned mains.
1997 Frederick County 151 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
ure 19: Parkins Mills Treatment Plant; Flow Versus Capaci
1.E
1.8
1.4
c
m
0
1.2
CL
m
c 1
0
is
O 0.8
O
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
87
PMTP FLOW
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Fiscal Year
E:l Flow - Limit
Capital Improvements Plan
The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is the community's plan for public facilities. It provides a list
of projects planned for five years and is updated each year as projects are completed and new
projects added. In general, projects on the Capital Improvements Plan are relatively expensive,
fixed assets that require expenditures that do not recur annually and last for a relatively long time.
The first year in the Capital Improvements Plan should provide a capital budget for the upcoming
fiscal year. The scheduling of projects needs to be coordinated with plans for development
1997 Frederick County 152 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should be used as a tool to aid in
determining priorities among projects, for estimating required funding, and for scheduling projects.
The Capital Improvements Plan helps to guide development, to achieve the most efficient use of
funds, and to maintain a stable financial program.
The County's procedures for reviewing and adopting the CIP need to be improved. The CIP needs
to have a direct link to available or projected funds. Projects need to be systematically reviewed
against established standards in order to determine priorities. These standards need to be developed
and reviewed on a regular basis. The County Finance Department should play an active role in the
CIP development process.
Facility Cost Impacts
Rezoning requests should be evaluated to determine their potential impacts on community facilities.
Costs to the County should be estimated in terms of what impact the development, which could
result from the proposed rezoning, would have on facilities and infrastructure. These costs are
estimated in terms of facility use per unit of development. The estimated facility use is determined
through the use of established multipliers which use averages derived from existing development.
These multipliers set out such factors as: expected numbers of vehicle trips, school children, gallons
of sewer and water usage per dwelling unit, square footage of commercial use, or person. The
demand on various facilities resulting from a proposed rezoning can then be estimated based on the
projected number of units which could result. Actual cost estimates are then calculated using the
costs of facilities listed in the Capital Improvements Plan. Initially, costs are estimated in terms
of the actual costs of providing facilities to support the potential development.
Frederick County has developed an impact model which is being used to project the potential costs
of rezonings on schools, parks, and fire and rescue facilities. The model projects the gross potential
costs of the facilities that would be needed to support a new development using the basic formula
described above. Credit is given for the projected revenues that would be generated by the
development. Potential revenues are subtracted from the projected gross costs resulting in an actual
projected net fiscal impact of the development on the County. The staff will need to update
information used in the model in order to keep it accurate. In general, we can anticipate some cost
impacts on parks and schools to result from residential rezonings. These same costs resulting from
commercial and industrial rezonings tend to be offset by the revenues generated from this type of
development. Nearly all rezonings have some potential impact on emergency services and facilities.
No rezoning should be approved unless the net impacts on community facilities are positive, or if
the negative impacts can be adequately addressed through proffers or some other means. A request
for rezoning may be turned down even though all fiscal impacts appear to be addressed. If there are
other impacts which are not addressed or if the request does not conform to this plan, a similar
method should be developed for determining the impacts of proposed developments on
1997 Frederick County 153 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
transportation systems and other public facilities.
Issues:
► There is a need to carefully monitor school enrollments and to plan for school
capacity to deal with overcrowding, replacement of outdated facilities, and
population growth in the County.
► There is a need to continue supporting fire and rescue squads and to develop
policies to deal with growing emergency service demands.
► House number efforts should continue in association with improved emergency
telephone systems.
► The County should support improvements at the Winchester Regional Airport as a
part of the overall economic development efforts.
► The County should continue to monitor refuse collection sites and should make
improvements or add sites as needed.
► The County should continue to monitor landfill recycling efforts should be
supported.
► The County should maintain a process of careful Capital Improvements Planning
coordinated with Comprehensive Planning.
► Frederick County and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority need to continue
coordinated planning of sewer and water facilities following the procedures
described by the Facilities Planning Agreement.
► Additional information is needed on the impacts of new development on community
facilities.
► Frederick County and the City of Winchester need to maintain coordinated planning
of sewer and water facilities in the County through the Sewer Agreements.
► Together with the County and the City, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority
should carefully plan needed sewage treatment capacity based on trends in usage.
The Service Authority needs to develop a capital improvements plan that is
coordinated with City and County plans.
► Water and sewer service should be provided to service areas in the urban
development areas through an orderly process following the Facilities Planning
1997 Frederick County 154 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
Agreement and using the Capital Improvements Plan.
1997 Frederick County 155 Comprehensive Plan
s
Community Facilities and Services
(Community Facilities and Services Map}
1997 Frederick Countv 156 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
Community Facility and Service Policy
GOAL - Appropriate services and facilities shall be provided to serve planned land uses and
development.
GVAL - Facilities and services should be carefully planned to meet projected needs
Strategy 1 - Plan sufficient school capacity to meet projdcted enrollment trends and to meet
appropriate facility standards.
Strategy 2 - Recognize the changes occurring in demand for emergency services and develop
policies for dealing with those changes.
Strategy 3 - Support expansion plans for the Winchester Regional Airport.
rate 4 - Monitor refuse collection and landfill use and continue to develop plans for future
improvements. Pursue recycling methods and other methods to extend the life of the landfill.
tr to 5 - Carefully monitor sewer and water use and develop up-to-date improvement plans for
sewer and water facilities.
Strateav 6 - Develop and maintain formal and regular relationships and procedures between the
County and providers of facilities and services, including the Sanitation Authority, the City of
Winchester, the Service Authority, the School Board, the Regional Airport Authority, and the Fire
and Rescue Squads.
Str� 7 - Use the Capital Improvements Plan to carefully plan community facilities and to
coordinate facilities planning with land use plans.
,Strategy 8 - Require that the impacts of new developments on facilities be described and require that
the impacts are addressed through proffers and other means.
Implementation Methods:
1. Carefully monitor school enrollments and plan facilities according to enrollment and
development trends. Update the Capital Improvements Plan each year based on trends.
2. Continue to support fire and rescue squads and plan to increase support according to
1997 Frederick County 157 Comprehensive Plan
Community Facilities and Services
development in the various service areas..
3. Develop plans for new emergency service facilities.
4. Continue to convert dumpster sites to compactor sites. Monitor usage. Plan for new
refuse collection sites according to use and planned development patterns.
5. Monitor landfill use. Plan for additional landfill capacity on adjacent land. Explore
alternative disposal methods.
6. Continue to plan for sewer and water main extensions according to the agreements
established with the Sanitation Authority and the City of Winchester. Include planned
extensions in the Capital Improvements Plan.
7. Provide for recycling at collection stations and support a regional materials recovery
center.
8. Carefully monitor sewer and water use and develop a capital improvements plan to
accommodate projected development.
9. Consider means to provide water service to Brucetown.
10. Consider alternative sources of water supply.
11. Minor extensions of sewer and water service to business and industrial uses beyond the
service area may be considered if such uses conform with other County standards. Such
extensions should be reviewed by the Planning Commission for conformance with the Plan.
12. Require that information be provided with rezoning proposals on the impacts of
development on community facilities. Impacts should be addressed through proffers and
other means. No rezoning should be approved unless all impacts are adequately addressed.
13. Any sewer or water main six inches in diameter or larger, extended or existing within
an area proposed for inclusion within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area or Urban
Development Area, should be dedicated as a public line to be owned and maintained by the
County Sanitation Authority or City of Winchester when appropriate.
14. Plans for new facilities should be based on demand projections as derived from
population projections in the Comprehensive Plan.
1997 Frederick County 158 Comprehensive Plan
_ Action Program
Comprehensive Policy Goads
The following is a summary of the comprehensive planning goals set forth for Frederick
County:
Protect the historic resources in Frederick County.
Promote the preservation and protection of Civil War Battlefield resources.
Maintain a moderate rate of population growth.
Provide for a balanced distribution of population growth.
Provide for a variety of housing types and locations to meet the varied needs and income levels of
the County's present and future population.
Reduce the costs of providing housing and public facilities to serve residential areas.
Encourage energy efficient housing and housing patterns.
Support a business climate conducive to economic activity and orderly economic growth.
Provide support to agriculture as a major industry in the County.
Provide support to travel and tourist related activities.
Protect the natural environment from damage due to development activity.
Provide for development according to the capacity of the natural environment to carry that
development.
Identify and protect important natural resources.
Develop land according to the characteristics of the land and the facilities available.
Develop land in accordance with standards that provide for appropriate quality of development:
Confine urban forms of land development to the Urban Development Area.
Provide sufficient land for a competitive market within the Urban Development Area.
Provide efficient and environmentally sensitive use of land in the Urban Development Area.
1997 Frederick County 171 Comprehensive Plan
Action Prozram
Provide sufficient land and a diversity of locations for a wide range of suburban housing types.
Provide for livable, high quality suburban residential neighborhoods.
Protect the environment and avoid adverse impacts that can result from suburban residential areas.
Provide sufficient land and a diversity of locations for business and industrial uses.
Carefully locate and limit business and industrial areas to avoid conflicts with other uses and to
avoid traffic impacts.
Provide for quality business and industrial areas.
Protect the environment and avoid other adverse impacts in business and industrial areas.
Insure that business corridors develop in a manner which is attractive and functional and reflects
positively on the community.
Insure that corridors develop in a fashion that is sensitive to environmental, visual, and
transportation impacts.
Insure that a satisfactory level of service for turning movements is provided along business
corridors.
Provide key economic development sites.
Let identified rural community centers serve as service centers for rural areas.
Let policies for each rural community center reflect the particular characteristics of each center
and the desire of their residents.
Maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County's economy.
Maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area.
Insure that land development activities in the rural areas are of appropriate quality.
Protect the rural environment.
Allow large scale new communities that are creatively and appropriately designed to provide the
highest possible quality of development.
1997 Frederick County 172 Comprehensive Plan
.-�V
Action Pro ram
Insure that new planned communities do not have adverse irrnpacts on the County.
Provide a safe and efficient road system throughout the County.
Coordinate land use planning and decisions with transportation planning.
r
Encourage the provision of a full range of transportation options including air, rail, and bus
services.
Provide for adequate and safe pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Appropriate services and facilities shall be provided to serve planned land uses and development.
Facilities and services should be carefully planned to meet projected needs
Contribute to the physical, mental, and cultural needs of the community, its economic and social
well-being, and its sense of civic pride and social responsibility through a complete program of
parks and recreation.
Continue to develop the County's regional park as a major source of recreational facilities and
activities.
Insure that appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided in urban and rural
areas.
Provide recreational programs and activities based on identified needs and available funding.
Provide a safe and efficient road system throughout the County.
Coordinate land use planning and decisions with transportation planning.
Provide for adequate and safe pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Encourage the provision of a full range of transportation options including air, rail, and bus
services.
Rural business uses should be developed in conformance with performance standards similar to
those used for urban businesses. Review the ordinances to insure proper standards.
Permitted uses within the rural areas of the County should be evaluated to determine their
potential impacts on agricultural operations.
1997 Frederick County 173 Comprehensive Plan
V
Action Program
Proposed Actions
The following describes actions or projects that need to be undertaken to achieve the previously
discussedgoals described -abrrve. The projects are listed in order of importance. It is not necessarily
the intention that these tasks be completed in this order. Instead, the list is intended to set general
priorities and assist in developing annual work programs.
-1-5r 1l. Study the public service needs and costs associated with development. Develop methods
to identify the impacts of land use decisions on public facilities and services. Accept proffers to
address the cost impacts on community facilities.
$2'. Undertake an effort to establish appropriate rural and urban residential densities based on the
carrying capacity of the environment, roads, and facilities. Develop information to estimate
carrying capacity. Establish density standards which provide a balanced distribution of population
growth.
X74 Develop comprehensive watershed management plans for the Urban Development Area to
address existing drainage problems and to develop sufficient stormwater management standards for
new development.
-ice 4. Develop an interchange area/corridor plan for the Interstate 81, Interchange 317 - Route 11
North - Route 37 area, which addresses land use, traffic patterns, and facilities.
-2.6 5. Develop an interchange area/corridor plan for the Interstate 81, Interchange 307 - Route 277
area which addresses land use, traffic patterns, and facilities.
�— 6'. Develop a geographic database for the County which is continuously updated and which can
be used to monitor development in the County.
-3ft-7. Review development ordinances to insure that provisions for pedestrian and bicycle travel are
made in developments in the urban areas.
--f-9 8. Develop a means to provide limited sewer and water service to the Round Hill and
Clearbrook- Brucetown-Stephenson rural community centers.
+1- 0. Review and develop procedures and criteria for secondary and primary road plans.
10. Prepare a County -wide recreation plan identifying parks and recreation needs and addressing
the following:
*Park, open space, and facility needs in the Urban Development Area
*Open space and facility standards for new development
1997 Frederick County 174 Comprehensive Plan
Action Program
*Rural and rural community center recreation needs
*Program needs
-4-11=. Develop a comprehensive system for preserving historic sites and battlefields using land
dedication and historic districts and use these historic resources to promote tourism and
education.
-1.6-12. Work with local farmers, agricultural organizations, and agriculturally related businesses
to develop economic development strategies in relation to agriculture. Emphasis should be
placed on developing markets for local agricultural products.
-r 13. Develop methods to protect historic sites. Recognize significant sites with plaques and signs.
-5-14. Work with the Towns of Stephens City and Middletown to develop plans for land in the
County surrounding those towns.
-2915. Identify scenic vistas in the County and identify methods to protect those vistas.
-6-16. Review provisions and policies for Rural Community Centers.
X9-17. Develop an interchange area/corridor plan for the Interstate 81, Interchange 310 - Route
11 South - Route 37 area, which addresses land use, traffic patterns, and facilities.
-3.3 IS. Continue to support fire and rescue squads and plan to increase support according to
development in the various service areas. Develop a plan for new fire and rescue facilities.
-9-19. Undertake a study to identify the impacts of development on groundwater.
zi 20. Review ordinances to insure that development within rural community centers is of a
high quality and that the public participates in the review.
3i 21. Structure plans and ordinances and make land use decisions which recognize the need for
more commercial uses in the Gore, Gainesboro, and Round Hill community centers. Review
uses allowed in the RA Zoning District and allow rezoning and conditional use permit approvals
to promote village commercial development in these areas.
-1-2 22. Develop an interchange area/corridor plan for the Route 37 - Route 522 North area,
which addresses land use, traffic patterns, and facilities.
-i5 23. Study the transit needs of the urban areas in the County.
-H 24. Evaluate the uses allowed in the agricultural zoning districts and other districts to insure
1997 Frederick County 175 Comprehensive Plan
Action Program
that a full range of agricultural activities are provided.
--3-f-25. Review park and ride needs and identify possible locations.
-z'4 26. Develop an interchange area/corridor plan for the Interstate 81, Interchange 321 - Route 672
area which addresses land use, traffic patterns, and facilities.
3- 274. Develop a comprehensive housing plan for the City and County to achieve decent, affordable
housing for all.
8+. Provide incentives to encourage the inclusion of affordable housing in larger scale planned
developments.
-2-7 2.9. Develop an interchange area/corridor plan for the Interstate 81, Interchange 302 - Route 627
area which addresses land use, traffic patterns, and facilities.
fid— A: Develop an interchange area/corridor plan for the Interstate 81, Interchange 323 - Route
669 area which addresses land use, traffic patterns, and facilities.
-2fr31 Undertake a study to develop standards to evaluate proposals for new EM, Extractive
Manufacturing areas.
Continuous A ntuaf Activities
The following summarizes some of the additional actions that should be undertaken on an annual
or continuous basis to implement the policies in the plan. The order listed is not meant to indicate
importance.
General
1. Hold joint meetings between the Frederick County Planning Commission and the Commissions
of the City of Winchester and the Towns of Stephens City and Middletown or use joint
subcommittees to review plans, regulations, and development proposals of joint interest.
Communications between staffs on these issues should be increased and formalized.
1997 Frederick County 176 Comprehensive Plan
Action Program
History
2. Use the Rural Landmarks Survey as a source for determining historic properties and districts that
would qualify for the State and national register and assist in the preparation and submission of
nominations. Provide positive publicity and education about the recognized sites.
3. Develop a method for notifying owners of abandoned historic property of the significance of their
property and urge them to maintain it.
4. Develop a mapping system to assist in determining whether development proposals will impact
historic resources.
5. Have the Historic Resources Advisory Board review development proposals which potentially
impact significant resources. Provide the HRAB's information and recommendations to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
6. Develop techniques for protecting and enhancing historic resources including zoning methods,
impact analysis, conservation easements, and tax incentives for rehabilitation efforts. Strong
support should be given to private initiatives such as voluntary compliance with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
7. Develop requirements and methods for dedication of land and historic districts pertaining to
significant developments affecting historic resources. Require that open space dedications for
developments in battlefield areas be used to create battlefield parks.
8. Encourage the creation of historic districts which provide fair and effective means of protection
as well as give design guidance. Consider participating in the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources' Certified Local Government Program.
9. Include concerns for historic preservation and tourism in economic development strategies.
Promote the concept of a focused event to promote the County's heritage, including reenactment,
tours, exhibits, and other activities. Develop ways to publicize sites and routes of interest that will
not adversely impact private property owners.
10. Present educational programs, such as slide presentations and lectures, to promote historic
preservation.
11. Assist the Battlefield Organization with the implementation of the Frederick County -Winchester
Battlefield Network Plan.
12. Review ordinances to provide appropriate sites for travel and tourist -related businesses.
1997 Frederick County 177 Comprehensive Plan
Action Program
Economic Development
13. Continue to provide staff and other forms of support to the Frederick County - Winchester
Economic Development Commission.
14. Continue to support industrial access requests.
15. Support improvements to the airport and airport access as a central factor in economic
development.
16. Include concerns for historic preservation and tourism in economic development strategies.
17. Obtain information from existing business and industry concerning economic development.
Enlist their assistance on a continuous basis to identify economic development, to take
advantage of the unique opportunities available to this area, to identify strengths and weaknesses
in the local economy, and to work to improve any weaknesses in the local economy.
18. Provide a diversity of sites in a wide range of locations for business and industrial sites.
19. Insure that industrial and business sites are provided with sufficient facilities, good access,
and appropriate locations to avoid congestion and to efficiently provide necessary services.
20. Review ordinances to insure that business and industrial sites are compatible with
surrounding areas and that sufficient standards are available to insure quality development.
Environment
21. Continue to develop an environmental database and use that database for general land use
planning and zoning decisions. Include information routinely collected by various agencies. Use
the database to monitor environmental impacts.
22. Require that information on carrying capacity be included with development proposals and use
that information to evaluate such proposals.
23. Undertake an effort to establish appropriate development densities based on carrying
capacity.
24. Strongly encourage and work with state agencies to develop sufficient standards to insure that
on-site sewage disposal systems are properly located, installed, operated, and maintained.
25. When allowed, require that small community sewage systems in rural developments be
1997 Frederick County 178 Comprehensive Plan
Action Pro ram
dedicated to a public authority. Such systems should not be allowed in areas intended to remain
rural into the indefinite future, including rural areas west of Interstate 81.
26. Prohibit uses that damage or pollute the environment.
27. Identify alternate sources of water supply and methods for protecting those resources.
28. Encourage significant agricultural and forestal areas to be included in Agricultural and Forestal
Districts.
29. Review ordinances on at least an annual basis to insure that sufficient performance standards
are active to provide environmental protection and appropriate quality of development. Include
evaluations of regulations in annual reports.
Land Use
30. Use the general Urban Development Area boundaries to evaluate the appropriateness of
development proposals.
31. Using information in annual reports on conditions in the County, review the boundaries of the
Urban Development Area on an annual basis.
32. Utilize the geographic database to monitor and report on the cumulative impacts of new
development.
33. Use the Capital Improvements Plan to carefully plan land use according to existing and planned
facilities and to provide appropriate facilities for areas planned for development. Coordinate capital
improvements planning, road improvements planning, and land use planning.
34. Review development and performance standards on an annual basis to insure that they are
protecting the environment, deterring negative impacts, and promoting development of sufficient
quality.
35. Monitor residential development to insure that sufficient appropriate sites are available for
suburban residential development.
36. Allow the expansion of existing mobile home parks and develop standards for locating new
parks.
37. Monitor the density of suburban residential developments and make appropriate revisions to
development regulations to insure that the average densities and range of densities do not increase
1997 Frederick County 179 Comprehensive Plan
Action Program
significantly.
38. Monitor development costs and review regulations to insure that development costs do not
increase unnecessarily.
39. Continue to require open space in suburban residential developments to protect
environmentally sensitive land, control density, and to provide open areas for the enjoyment of
residents.
40. Provide a diversity of sites for business and industrial sites.
41. Evaluate business and industrial developments according to the appropriateness of the
site in relation to surrounding uses and the interchange development pattern.
42. Insure that industrial and business sites are provided with sufficient facilities, good access, and
appropriate locations to avoid congestion and to efficiently provide necessary services.
43. Allow neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of residential areas. Such uses should be
limited in size.
44. Require master plans for all major developments in the urban areas.
45. Provide information on procedures for establishing agricultural and forestal districts and actively
support and promote the inclusion of additional bona fide agricultural and forestal land in districts.
46. Avoid large, higher density developments in important agricultural areas to avoid conflicts with
agriculture.
47. Use detailed impact analysis to evaluate new development proposals. Accept reasonable and
sufficient proffers to address impacts.
48. Limit new residential rezonings in the Airport Support Area.
49. Allow new planned communities in the Urban Development Area if sufficient facilities are
available.
50. Review the land development ordinances and administrative procedures to insure that adequate
provisions are made for administration and enforcement.
Transportation
1997 Frederick County 180 Comprehensive Plan
Action Pro ram
51. Maintain a general road plan for the area and review it with Winchester and the Virginia
Department of Transportation. Use the plan to identify important travel routes. Require the
dedication of rights-of-way for planned routes and needed improvements as part of development
plans.
52. Use the secondary and primary road improvement planning process to identify carry out road
improvements.
53. Accept dedications and proffers to implement road plans. Require conformance with road plans
in new developments.
54. Maintain appropriate levels of service on County roads through impact analysis, proffers, and
design requirements.
55. Explore private funding and other sources for road improvements.
Community Facilities and Services
56. Continue to plan for sewer and water main extensions according to the agreements established
with the Sanitation Authority and the City of Winchester. Include planned extensions in the Capital
Improvements Plan.
57. Carefully monitor sewer and water use and develop a capital improvements plan to
accommodate projected development.
58. Work with the Sanitation Authority, through the capital improvements planning process, to
insure that sufficient sewer and water capacity are available for expansion of business and industrial
uses.
59. Review the location of the Sewer and Witer Service Area to identify appropriate areas for its
expansion.
60. Carefully monitor school enrollments and plan facilities according to enrollment and
development trends. Update the Capital Improvements Plan each year based on trends.
61. Continue to convert dumpster sites to compactor sites and monitor their usage. Plan for new
refuse collection sites according to use and planned development patterns.
62. Monitor landfill use. Plan for additional landfill capacity on adjacent land.
63. Adopt methods to transfer costs to users of public services.
1997 Frederick County 181 Comprehensive Plan
Action Program
64. Use sanitary districts to provide services to rural areas.
65. Review density limits in the land developripent ordinances to insure that they promote the desired
balance of population growth.
66. Coordinate capital improvements planning, road improvements planning, and land use planning.
67. Develop methods to identify the impacts of land use decisions on public facilities.
68. Avoid land use decisions that will result in levels of population density that cannot be safely and
efficiently supported by public facilities, roads, and the natural environment.
69. Allow neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of residential areas. Such uses should be
limited to small sites in any particular area.
70. Provide improved sewer and water service to existing development in the Round Hill and
Clearbrook-Brucetown-Stephenson areas.
71. Allow a variety of support activities for agriculture in the rural areas.
72. Require that information be provided with rezoning proposals on the impacts of development
on community facilities. Impacts should be addressed through proffers and other means. No
rezoning should be approved unless all impacts are adequately addressed.
73. Any sewer or water main six inches in diameter or larger should be dedicated as a public line
to be owned and maintained by the County Sanitation Authority or City of Winchester when
appropriate.
74. Plans for new facilities should be based on demand projections as derived from population
projections in the Comprehensive Plan.
Parks and Recreation
75. Continue to solicit public opinion in planning parks and recreation facilities.
76. Encourage the use of State and Federal grants and loans for financing and programming of
County recreational needs and especially for major capital projects.
77. Cooperate with the Frederick County School Board in jointly meeting identified County
recreational needs.
1997 Frederick County 182 Comprehensive Plan
Action Program
78. Cooperate with the private sector and other public providers of recreation in meeting identified
recreational needs.
79. Use the capital improvements planning process to provide improvements to the regional parks.
80. Utilize the enterprise fund system to pay for the recreational programs and services provided by
the County.
81. Actively solicit contributions for the provision of recreational programs and program facility
needs, from all segments of the community, both private and public.
1997 Frederick County 183 Comprehensive Plan
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II
RE: Assisted Living Care Facilities and Adult Care Facilities Discussion
DATE: November 6, 1996
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered a request to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to allow assisted living care facilities (also known as adult care facilities) as a
permitted use in the RP, Residential Performance District. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance permits
independent living facilities with accessory care services, such as Westminster Canterbury, as a
permitted use, and convalescent or nursing home facilities as a use that is only permitted through the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Assisted living care facilities are marketed as a "stepping -stone" between independent living facilities
and convalescent or nursing home facilities. Assisted living care facilities provide a service to adults
over the age of 21 who are elderly, infirmed, or disabled. This service is designed to encourage
residents to live independently, while providing personal care services such as meals preparation,
bathing, dressing, laundry, housekeeping, transportation, administering medication, and scheduling
medical appointments. Residents of assisted living care facilities reside within a facility that provides
individual or shared rooms and common areas internal and external to the building.
The DRRS discussed this request at length and expressed several concerns with permitting assisted
living care facilities as a "by -right" use in the RP, Residential Performance District. Concerns ranged
from security issues, to issues associated with increased dementia of the residents, to design issues
such as buffers and screening and parking. The DRRS also felt that assisted living care facilities were
analogous to day care facilities which are considered businesses and require Conditional Use Permits.
The DRRS recommended that assisted living care facilities should only be permitted through the
review and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Staff felt that it would be prudent to discuss this issue with the Planning Commission prior to the
advertisement of a text amendment. Staff has provided the Planning Commission with several items
for consideration. Staff believes that it would be beneficial to achieve concensus on the approach and
issues pertaining to this use prior to advertisement.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITIES
How the use should be defined = the definition adopted by the Virginia Department of Social
Services for this use is as follows:
Adult Care Residence any place, establishment, or institution, public or private, operated
or maintained for the maintenance or care of four or more adults who are aged, infirm, or
disabled and who are cared for in a primarily residential setting, except (1) a facility or portion
of a facility licensed by the State Board of Health or the Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, and (ii) the home or residence of an individual
who cares for or maintains only persons related to him by blood or marriage, and (iii) a facility
or portion of a facility serving infirm or disabled persons between the ages of 18 and 21.
How the use should be permitted:
- inclusion as a by -right use in the RP, Residential Performance District
inclusion as a by -right use in the B-2, Business General District
A- allowed with a CUP in the RP, Residential Performance District
Consideration of performance standards:
-parking space considerations
- open space requirements
- primary and accessory structural heights
- buffer and screening requirements
- recreational amenity requirements
* NOTE* Kery few uses permitted through the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
have performance standards associated with them; however, the DRRS
felt that it would be prudent to establish performance standards for assisted
living care facilities to ensure that they are developed consistently.