Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 12-06-95 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia DECEMBER 6, 1995 7:00 P.M CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Meeting Minutes of October 18 and November 1, 1995 ..................... A 2) Bimonthly Report/Activity Report ...................................... B 3) Citizen Comments .................................................. C PUBLIC HEARINGS 4) Rezoning Application #008-94 of James Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General). The property is located at the intersection of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road and is identified with PINS 64A -4- 20A, 64A -10-A, and 64A -10-B and is located in the Shawnee District. (Mr. Tierney) ..................................................... D 5) Conditional Use Permit Application #012-95 of Edward Sutphin for a cottage occupation for small engine repair at 1179 Hudson Hollow Road. This property is identified with PIN 86-2-9 in the Opequon District. (Mr. Miller) ...................................................... E 6) Rezoning Application 4006-95 of Woodside Estates to rezone 36.4589 acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located on the West side of Double Church Road (Route 641) and South of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and is identified with PIN 86-A-21 in the Opequon District. (Mr. Tierney) ..................................................... F 2 OTHER 7) The 1996 Draft of the Comprehensive Policy Plan for Frederick County. (Mr. Tierney) ..................................................... G 8) Informal discussion regarding a proposed Master Development Plan by Dr. Raymond Fish. (Mr. Wyatt) ...................................................... H 9) Informal discussion regarding a Public Utilities Improvement Project by the City of Winchester. (Mr. Wyatt) ...................................................... I 10) Informal discussion regarding self -storage facilities in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District by E.E. Bayliss, III, Vice -President of D&M Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (Mr. Wyatt) ...................................................... J 11) Informal discussion regarding a proposed MDP for Pegasus Center and a request for waiver of the zoning district by John C. Lewis, P.E. (Mr. Wyatt) ...................................................... K 12) Request for a wavier of the zoning district buffer for John Tauber/Professional Mobile Home Sales by G. W. Clifford & Associates. (Mr. Tierney) ..................................................... L 13) Informal discussion regarding revision to the Preston Place Master Development Plan by Garrett S. Runey, P.E. of Bengston, DeBell & Elkin, Ltd.. (Mr. Wyatt) ...................................................... M MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on November 1, 1995. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners Present were= Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. Staff Present: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner Il; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of the September 20, 1995 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed ways of improving the ordinance for setbacks and the placement of survey pins to reduce the number of problems with the placement of houses on lots. He said that Top of Virginia representatives were at the meeting and gave some good suggestions. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPCI - 11/15/95 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver said that for the November 15 CPPC agenda, the committee will have a final draft of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan for review and recommendation. Economic Development Commission Mr. Romine said that the Local Industry Committee will be meeting to discuss ways to make their program more informative and helpful to existing industry. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Rezoning Application #008-94 of James Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres from RP (Residential 3 Performance) to B2 (Business General). This property is located at the intersection of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road and is identified with PINS 64A- 4 -MA, 64A -4-10A, and 64A -10-B in the Shawnee District. Action - Tabled for 30 Days at Applicant's Request Chairman DeHaven said he would abstain from discussion and voting on this application and turned the chair over to Vice Chairman Marker. Mr. Tierney said that a letter from Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, was delivered to the Planning Department today requesting that the application be tabled until November 15. Mr. Tierney said that for advertising reasons, the staff is requesting that consideration be tabled for 30 days, until December 6, 1995. Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine, the Commission unanimously voted to table consideration of this rezoning for 30 days or until their meeting of December 6, 1995. Vice Chairman Marker called for public comment at this time and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Mr. James J. Gibbons, resident at 105 Stanley Circle, said that he has attended all six meetings held on this rezoning. Mr. Gibbons said that the residents of the area do not want this property rezoned. He urged the Commission not to postpone a decision any further and to deny the rezoning. Mr. Keri Kimberly, homeowner at Pembridge Heights, said that Mr. Maddox made a statement at a previous meeting that they would not proceed if the homeowners did not want this. Mr. Kimberly felt that if nothing has been done, the Planning Commission should not perpetuate what a lot of people feel is a cynical attitude on the part of the property owner. Mr. Melton Bageant, resident on Custer Avenue, said that new guardrails have been installed at the intersection where the proposed road was planned to go through. Mr. Bageant felt that if a road was planned through this area, VDOT would not have put the guardrails in. No one else wished to speak and Vice Chairman Marker turned the meeting back over to Chairman DeHaven. 4 Rezoning Application #005-95 of James T. Wilson to rezone 2.99 acres from B 1 (Neighborhood Business) to 82 (Business General). This property is located on the east side of Aylor Road (Rt. 647) and is identified with PINs 74B -5-C, 74-A-104, and 74-A- 105 in the Opequon District. Action - Withdrawn by the Applicant Mr. Tierney said that the Commission tabled this rezoning at their last meeting for 30 days to allow the applicant sufficient time to submit a proffer statement that outlined specific uses for the property. Mr. Tierney said that two local citizens were present at the Commission's meeting of October 4 to speak in opposition to the requested rezoning and a petition of opposition with 51 signatures from residents of the Plymm Owens subdivision was also submitted. He said that the concerns of the citizens centered mainly on the traffic problems around the 277/ 647/ I-81 intersection area, the lack of buffering/screening between the businesses and residences, and that most B2 uses were too intense for this area. Mr. Sager said that many people have called him concerning the property and their concerns were that: 1) the building is unsecured and presents a safety hazard for children; 2) two by fours from the overhang to the ground remain as they have for months; 3) a tractor trailer truck is parked on the property; and 4) the rezoning signs have been removed. Mr. Sager questioned the legality of addressing this rezoning without proper sign display and he asked Mr. Wilson if he would secure the building for safety reasons. Mr. James T. Wilson, the applicant, addressed some of the concerns raised by Mr. Sager. Mr. Wilson said that the tractor -trailer truck belonged to someone in the Plymm Owens subdivision and they do not have his permission to park the truck on his property. He said that he does not like having the building vacant, but when he has boarded the building up in the past, he has had problems with break-ins and vandalism. He said that he would attempt again to board the building up. Mr. Wilson said that he did indeed remove the rezoning signs from his property. He added that he had made repairs to the day care building, but did not expand its size. Since Mr. Wilson did not submit a revised proffer statement as discussed at the last meeting, the Commission inquired as to whether Mr. Wilson was proposing an all or nothing proposition on the B2 Zoning. Chairman DeHaven said that the Commission did not have a problem with a restaurant use on this property, but did have concerns about other B2 uses. Mr. Wilson said that he was not willing to deal with the proffer issue at this time. Mr. Wilson felt he was being treated unfairly through the whole process of trying to establish a business here and said 5 he would like to withdraw his application. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Ms. Frieda Courtney, resident of Plymm Owens, objected because of the kinds of businesses that B2 Zoning entails, the lighting problems created for residences, and the potential depreciation of property values. Mr. Marshall M. Conner, adjoining property owner, inquired whether or not overnight parking of tractor trailers was permitted in a B 1 zone. Mr. Conner also inquired if Mr. Wilson needed to have a site plan to remodel his building because he had storm water management and setback concerns. The staff addressed Mr. Conner's concerns and then Chairman DeHaven accepted Mr. Wilson's request to withdraw his rezoning application. An amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Map to establish properties that will comprise the Interstate Area (IA) Overlay District. Properties proposed are currently zoned B1 (Neighborhood Business) District, B2 (Business General) District, B3 (Industrial Transition) District; and M1 (Light Industrial) District, and are located within each magisterial district within Frederick County. Approved properties will receive an IA District designation and will maintain the zoning classification of the underlying zoning district. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt said that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors adopted the new IA Overlay District on May 10, 1995. He said that this zoning classification provides property owners with the ability to erect free standing business signs that are of a greater height and square footage than are permitted in the underlying zoning district. Mr. Wyatt said that the next step in this process is to establish the properties that will comprise this district. He added that the properties that are approved will receive an IA District classification and maintain the zoning classification of the underlying district. Mr. Wyatt explained the criteria used for selecting the properties to be included.. T Examining the Exit 313 map, the Commissioners questioned why the Delco Parcel and its out -parcels were not included within the IA Zone. Mr. Wyatt said that the out -parcels are legally nonconforming and currently have signs that would exceed the height allowed in the new IA Zone. He said that if they were included despite being grand fathered, it may create a `domino' effect of requests for taller signs down along the corridor. He added that Delco Plaza itself was not included because it does not meet specific criteria and their sign is already located within one of the out -parcels. Mr. Wyatt also brought the Commission's attention to the small 1/10 acre portion of Parcel IE, which was also located on the Exit 313 map. He said that tax records erroneously indicated this as a much larger parcel and since it was discovered to be only a 1/10 acre parcel, he suggested that the Commission omit it from the Overlay Zone. Mr. Wyatt based this suggestion on the fact that the parcel was too small to construct a business and it was adjoining residential property. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Jerry Grimes, adjoining property owner, had concerns regarding the IA Overlay District at Exit 313, specifically the small area adjoining Parcel IE owned by the Guthrie Sign Company as referenced by Mr. Wyatt. Mr. Grimes asked that the Guthrie property not be included in the IA Overlay Zone. Mr. Grimes said that his property adjoins the Guthrie property and the lights from the existing illuminated bill board flood his property. He said that he was fast approaching 24-hour daylight with everything else that is going on at this location. He said that the Guthrie property, which is only 1/10 acre, would only be suitable for off -premise signs. Mr. Grimes said that the high-rise signs in the area, like the Cracker Barrel Sign which he has to see all the time, shine directly into his bedroom windows. Mr. Mike Collins, resident at the intersection of 11/37/81, inquired if there were federal rules and regulations regarding signs along the interstate, since Interstate 81 was a federally funded highway. Mr. Collins said that Lady Byrd Johnson was trying to eliminate signs along the interstate with her beautification program. He said that he has lived at this location for the past 45 years and has put up with the view of bill boards and lights shining into his bedroom window all his life. He said that these are just small signs and he was very concerned about allowing even larger ones. Mr. Collins wondered who was going to benefit from allowing taller signs. Commissioners noted that a letter had been received from the Town of Stephens City regarding the Overlay District. Mr. Wyatt said that Stephens City is opposing the inclusion 7 of properties along the Route 277 Corridor going into the Town of Stephens City. Mr. Thomas moved that the letter be made a parr of the official record. This motion was seconded by Mr. Ours and unanimously passed. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Map designating properties at Exit 302 (Middletown), Exit 307 (Stephens City), Exit 310 (Kernstown), Exit 313 (Rt. 50 & Rt. 522), Exit 315 (Berryville Pike), Exit 317 (I-81/Rt.37/Rt.11), Exit 321 (Clearbrook), and Exit 323 (Whitehall), to be included in the Interstate Area Overlay District as depicted on maps presented by the staff, minus the 1/10 acre Guthrie property at Exit 313, indentified as PIN 64 -A -1A. INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING A POSSIBLE REZONING FOR RICHARD HEISEY No Action Mr. Tierney said that Mr. Richard Heisey is interested in rezoning two small parcels on the south side of Route 50 West, just past the intersection of Poor House Road, to B2 (Business General) and the proposed use is for a self storage facility. Mr. Tierney said that the proposed Land Use Plan for the Round Hill Community recommends this area of Route 50 for eventual business use. He said that the plan also recommends that rezoning should not take place prior to the provision of public water and sewer service. Mr. Tierney said that Mr. Heisey's proposed facility would not, unlike most B2 uses, require water and sewer. Mr. Richard L. Heisey said he would like to develop a 13/8 acre piece of property into a small self -storage facility consisting of approximately 75 units ranging in size from 5 X 10 to 10 X 20 or 30. Mr. Heisey said that he intended for this to be a small, community-based business intended to meet the storage needs of private individuals and small, local businesses. Mr. Heisey answered questions from the Commission regarding security, hours of operation, fire protection, visibility and impacts on the residential neighborhood and the Route 50 corridor. The Commission was generally in favor of the proposed business, however, they informed Mr. Heisey that their concerns about visibility and impact on the adjoining residential area and the visibility and impact on the view sheds of the Route 50 corridor would need to be addressed, as well as fire protection issues. Commissioners also commented about the Round Hill Community concept and the extension of water and sewer for the residents there. It was noted that the County was not going to be able to pay to extend sewer and water services out that area and the only way those services were going to able to be extended was by business development. Commissioners observed that within the last month, several small businesses have begun to establish themselves here, but the businesses have not had any effect on extension of sewer and water services. It was noted that it was going to take a sizable business coming in there before the sewer service would be extended. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman DeHaven adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman _ .`i ',q .r .Y: a ,� '.r — — e. _ . �. i_1 u _ i ' �� _ 1 . �. �, -_ .�. � � .� I- ..�. -- ',- - ��- .I ti' J ; _ :. J��' i - - , _ "� If��l rpt... �: � r � .r -_] .� r. ti � � , � :_ f'-� �Iy]I[ � _ � TJ Rte.' 1 L�- �ry� 'IF; � _ � � � 1. y L �_ � r'° x*, 1 y '! -ti. �.' _ - _ _ - 4 + �•- �. ° .vv ij: �.� - 1 � �1 r i� � v_�-� �, �z7 .'*j��J ��L= G J Y`:,� g.��1 .. -� *� 1 ' - , '.y,� r '�. 4���� .��,�'h.• J �f+ I' -„7� tiL-�.� 4� rig ,'r � ,. G.�rl�- _ �v'+f�' �; L ...- �. - - ' ,yam [ �„ �+ry MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on October 18, 1995. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were- Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District;George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; and George L. Romine, Citizen at Large Staff present:Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. N COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee - 10/9/95 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPC is proceeding with the finalization of the comments to be placed in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Round Hill area. Historic Resources Advisory Board - 10/17/95 Mtg. Mr. Morris said that the HRAB is currently reviewing an application for a historical plaque for the Claridge property. Winchester City Planning Commission - 9/12/95 & 9/19/95 Mtgs. Mr. Shickle reported that the City is currently looking at an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow transmitting and receiving facilities and towers for cellular communication systems and similar communication systems as an allowable conditional use in every zoning district. Citizen Comments Mr. Arthur Lee, resident on Westmoreland Drive in Fredericktowne Estates in Stephens City, presented a petition concerning the problem of construction traffic using Westmoreland Drive. Mr. Lee said that there is a great deal of construction traffic using Westmoreland Drive to get to other areas of Fredericktowne Estates currently under construction and it is becoming a serious traffic problem. He said that the letter requests that the Planning Commission somehow prohibit the construction traffic on Westmoreland and force construction C traffic to use an alternative route. Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT will initiate a traffic study only by resolution of the Board of Supervisors and ager the study has been completed, the Commonwealth Transportation Board will make the final decision on whether to post the road as `no through truck traffic.' Mr. Wyatt added that this road was just recently posted with 25 mph speed limit signs. Mr. Thomas said that he didn't know of any other area where an easement could be obtained for an alternative truck traffic route. Mr. Thomas was in agreement with the homeowners and felt the speed limit needed to be enforced. Mr. Ours said that Westmoreland is the only access for this development and the residents have been putting up with the construction traffic for the passed five years, which begins at about 6:00 a.m. and continues well after dark, sometimes seven days a week. Mr. Ours explained that this is a straight stretch of road, approximately 1 1h miles and trucks pick up quite a bit of speed. Mr. Ours said they spoke with the Sheriff's office about enforcing the speed limit, but they have manpower and equipment limitations. Mr. Ours moved to make the petition a part of the official record. His motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously approved. Chairman DeHaven requested that the Planning staff Iook into the matter and to also keep the Lees informed of any progress. PUBLIC HEARING A Preliminary Battlefield Network Plan to establish a network of battlefield sites to be used to support tourism and education_ The plan describes concepts, strategies, and sites and includes a recommended plan of action. Action - Unanimously Endorsed Battlefield Discussion Mr. Watkins said that the Battlefield Task Force has been working for a couple 0 years on this effort and has involved a number of citizen groups. Mr. Watkins said that a strong theme of this effort has been to achieve a community consensus on the ideas and approaches. He said that the primary goal of the plan is to develop a successful battlefield park network that preserves key sites, attracts tourists from around the world, and supports education. Mr. Watkins said that the idea is to have a system of sites connected by tour routes, a uniform system of signage, and a uniform system of interpretation. Mr. Stanley M. Hirschberg, past president and current Board member of the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, and resident of Frederick County for the past 21 years, came forward to speak in favor of the Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan. Mr. Hirschberg read a statement congratulating Mr. Watkins and the Battlefield Task Force on a job well done. Mr. Hirschberg felt the plan was excellent and well thought out and urged the Planning Commission to endorse the plan. He said that Winchester and Frederick County has six civil war battlefields of great national importance and without a concentrated and effective effort, these sites will be lost to development in the next 20 years because of their location. Mr. Hirschberg said that a battlefield park network will provide substantial economic and educational benefits, however, a critical goal will be to develop long-term funding sources for battlefield preservation. The Commission discussed with the staff the primary and secondary preservation areas and how these areas would be incorporated within the Comprehensive Plan. Commission members felt the Battlefield Plan was an outstanding piece of work and expressed their gratitude to the people who put so much effort into it. They noted that the quality of work by the staff was excellent and they especially recognized the work by the Planning Department's Graphics and Mapping Manger, Mark Lemasters, noting that his research and work was outstanding and went above and beyond his particular job responsibilities. Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the Frederick County -Winchester Battlefield Network Plan and does unanimously recommend to the Board of Supervisors that this plan be approved. Subdivision Application #010-95 of Star Fort Estates, Sections I, for the subdivision of a 7.5713 acre portion of the larger parcel into 21 lots for single-family dwellings, with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. This property is located on the east side of Lauck Drive (Route 832) and is identified with PIN 54-A-1 in the Stonewall District. 5 Action - Approved Mr. Tierney presented the background information and review agency comments for the proposed subdivision. He said that the proposed subdivision was in conformance with the approved master development plan. There were no issues of concern raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Subdivision Application #010-95 of Star Fort Estates, Section I, to subdivide a 7.5713 acre portion into 21 single-family dwellings. Discussion with Mr. E. E. Bayliss, III regarding a possible Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow self storage in M1 Zoning No Action Mr. Wyatt said that Mr. Bayliss contacted the staff and requested that his item of discussion be postponed until December due to a scheduling conflict. The Commission had no objections to postponing the discussion. Informal discussion regarding a p_rQposgd master development plan for Hill Valla consisting of 54 single-family dwellings_ This propert, is boned RP and is located at the, intersection of Valley Mill Road and Greenwood Road iothe Shawnee District No Action Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the consulting engineers for this project, said that they were adding another alternative to the 3i proposal, as a result of discussions with VDOT. Mr. Maddox said that the parcel in question is a key proponent in the Greenwood Road improvement project, which involves the entire watershed in this area and is a fairly involved project. Mr. Maddox proceeded to explain the design concepts to the Commission. Commissioners noted that the transportation issue was the essential point requiring resolution for this proposal. They inquired about access through Blossom Drive. Mr. Maddox said the idea was pursued, but was not able to be worked out, because it was a private property issue and the owners were not willing to give access. Commissioners inquired about access via Valley Mill Road and Mr. Maddox explained why that was also not feasible. Commissioners noted that the site distance was not good at this intersection and hoped that the applicant could work something out with VDOT to improve that. Mr. David Holliday, the contract owner, said that he was aware of the transportation problems here and has had discussions with VDOT. He assured the Commission that they had a ready, willing, and able landowner that would work with VDOT to help solve the problem. Mr. Holliday recognized that roadway safety was definitely a factor. Informal Discussion for Hardee's Restaurants/Mobil Oil Convenience Center Site Plan Action - PC Requests to Review Final Site Plan Mr. Wyatt said that the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for this project on October 4, 1995 and one of the conditions of the permit was for a formal review of the site plan by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wyatt said that the project consultants are interested in receiving input from the Planning Commission regarding site aesthetics and architectural design, which will he incorporated into the final site plan. He added that this project has been presented to the Frederick County Technical Review Committee for design recommendation; however, a formal site plan has not been provided to Frederick County for review agency comment at this time. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin and Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the consulting engineers for this project, presented a preliminary site plan to the Commission. The Planning Commission felt that the use and concept was good for this area, but h they felt the following issues should be addressed: 1) special attention should be paid to the front of the building to soften the exterior and make it aesthetically pleasing; country -style windows, a steeper roof line, and softer colors were suggested; 2) landscaping should be placed at the front of the parcel to create a green rural -like atmosphere; 3) signs should not be overbearing and lighting should be directed away from residences; 4) the parking areas of the livestock exchange and the convenience center site should be separated in some way, perhaps by a strip of greenery; S) attention should be made to the spacing of the entrance with the intersection of Ward Avenue and the livestock exchange lot; and 6) the Planning Commission should review the final site plan. There being no further business to discuss, Chairman DeHaven adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed November 22, 1995) REZONINGS: Woodside Est. (REZ) Opequon 36.4589 RA to RP Acres Location: East side of Double Churches Rd (Rt. 641), south of the intersection w/ Fairfax Pk (Rt. 277 Submitted: 11/15/95 PC Review: 12/06/95 BOS Review: not yet scheduled James Carroll REZ Shawnee 2.81 acres =:::I RP to B2 Location: Custer Ave./Pembridge Rd. Submitted: 10/07/94 PC Review: Tabled by PC: 11/02/94 Tabled at Applicant's request: 12/07/94, 03/01/95, 04/05/95, 04/19/95, 11/01/95; Next review date: 12/06/95 BOS Review: not yet scheduled Wayne Ridgeway REZ Gainesboro 2.047 acres RA to B3 Location: Rt. 522 Submitted: 04/05/95 PC Review: Tabled at AppIicant's request: 05/03/95, 08/02/95 10/04/95 - Recommended Denial BOS Review: 11/08/95 - Denied MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Fieldstone H hts MDP) Stonewall T169 SF Det. Trad. Lots RP Location: South of Valley Mill Rd. Rt. 659) Submitted: 04/25/95 PC Review: 05/18/94 Tabled 07/06/94 Approved BOS Review: 1 08/10/94 Approved ILPending Admin. Approval. Awaiting completion of review agency requirements Battlefield Partnership (MDP) Back Creek 16.3 Acres of B2 Property Location: South of Winchester, between Rts. 11 S and I-81 Submitted: 02/21/92 PC Review: 03/18/92 Approved BOS Review: 04/08/92 Approved Pending Admin. A Koval: Awaiting completion of review agency requirements James R. Wilkins, III MDP Shawnee 76 Apartments & 86 T.H. (RP) Location: South side of Rt. 659 Submitted: 11/02/92 PC Review: 12/16/92 Tabled 02/17/93) Approved BOS Review: 03/10/93 Tabled 04/14/93 Approved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaitin r completion of review a,-en*cy requirements SUBDIVISIONS: HFG PartnershipSUB Back Creek L2B2 Lots; 10.031 Acres Total Location: Sul Drive Submitted: 11/06/92 PC Review: 12/06/95 Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting submittal of corrected plan addressing PC comments. Valle Mill Estates SUB Stonewall 21 SF Trad. Lots RP Location: No. Side of Valley Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 10/23/95 PC Review: 11/15/95 - Approved BOS Review: Review not required --Has an approved MDP Pendia Admin. Approval: Awaiting bonding, signed plats, & deed of dedication Wine -Fred Co. IDC (SUB) Back Creek 2 MI Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres Location: Southeast side of Development Lane Submitted: 09/08/95 PC Review: 10/04/95 Approved BOS Review: Review not required --Has an approved MDP Pending Admin. ApEf2Lal__JLAwaiting signed plats. Fred it ce ktowne Estates, Sect. 10 & 11 SUB Opequon 34 SF Detached Lots on 15.4738 I Acres RP Location: East of Stephens City, north of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 8 & 9 Submitted: 09/07/95 PC Review: 10/04/95 - Approved under current design stds. BOS Review: Review not required --Has an approved NMP. On 10/11/95, applicant appealed PC decision. BOS granted. [PendingAdmin. Approvalj Approval Awaiting signed plats. Star Fort, Sect. I (SUB) Stonewall 21 SF lots on 7.5713 total acres RP Location: Lauck Drive; east side of Rt. 832 Submitted: 08/28/95 PC Review: 10/18/95 - Approved BOS Review: Review not required --Has an approved NMP Pending Admin. A Koval: Awaiting signed plats. Maxwell T. Mandel, DVM (SUB) Opequon 2 Lots from 0.803 Acres (B1) Location: Southeast corner of Rt. 277 & Highlander Rd. Submitted: 07/28/95 PC Review: 09/06/95 - Approved BOS Review: 09/13/95 - Approved Pending Admin. ApRK2val. Awaiting signed plats & entrance agreement. J.I.C., Ltd. Industrial Lots Residue of Lot 9-A SUB Shawnee 2 Lots - 8.411 total Acres (M1) Location: Arbor Ct. Rt. 1000), off of Victory Lane Rt. 728 Submitted: 08/11/95 PC Review: 09/06/95 - Approved BOS Review: Review Not Required - Has an Approved NMP Admin. Approval: 11 11/22/95 RT&T Partnership SUB Back Creek 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres B2 Location: Valle Pike (Rt. 11 So.) Submitted: 05/17/95 PC Review: 06/07/95 Approved BOS Review: Review not required --has an approved NMP Pending Admin. Approval: Awaitin submission of signed plat & deed of dedication Briarwood Estates SUB Stonewall 20 SF Det. Trad. Lots RP Location: Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 01/03/94 PC Review: Review date pending atapplicant's request. BOS Review: Review not required --has an approved MDP Abrams Point, Phase I SUB Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots RP Location: South side of Rt. 659 Submitted: 05/02/90 PC Review: 06/06/90 Approved BOS Review: 06/13/90 Approved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat Harry Stimpson (SUB) O e won 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. AERK2vak Awaiting signed plat. Preston Place (SUB) Shawnee 1 72 Garden Apartments RP Location: North side of Airport Rd. Rt. 645) Submitted: 10/31/94 PC Review: 11/16/94 Approved BOS Review: Not required --Has an approved MDP Admin. Approved: ILI1/22/95 SITE PLANS: Mark J. Tenenbaum (SP) IShopon Shawnee Metal/Electronics Fabrication 0.849 Acres 1 Location: Arbor Court; North of Blue Rid a Industries Submitted: 11/17/95 Approved: Pending Garber Ice Cream (SP) Shawnee Proposed Freezer Addition on 0.14 acres B2 [346 Location: Front Royal Pike Submitted: 11/20/95 Approved: Pending Horizon Development Co. (SP) Shawnee Parking Layout on 0.20 acres B2 Location: 1090 Millwood Pike Submitted: 10/27/95 Approved: Pending Regency Lakes, Sect. E SP Stonewall 95 units on 28.0 acres MH1 Location: North of Regency Lakes Drive Submitted: 10/27/95 Approved Pending_ Timber Ridge Adminis- tration Bldg SP Gainesboro 12,800 sf Admin. Bldg, on 2.8 acres RA Location: 1463 New Hope Road, Cross Junction Submitted: 10/06/95 11 Approved: Pending Power Tech SP Stonewall 1500 sf addition on 0.13 ac. M1 Location: 1458 Martinsburg Pike Submitted: 10/02/95 Approved: 11/15/95 - Approved Rite Aid Pharmacy (SP) Opequon Rite Aid Pharmacy on 1.50 acres (B2) Location; SE corner of intersection of Fairfax Pk (Rt. 277) & Double Church Rd. (Rt. 641) Submitted: 09/08/95 Approved: Pendin James Wood High School Addition SP Gainesboro School Addition on 0.43 Acres (RA) Location: A le Pie Rid e Road Rt. 739 Submitted: 08/31/95 Approved: 11/17/95 Southern States Back Creek Fuel Storage/Retail Store on 0.60 Cooperative, Inc. SP acres B2 & M1 Location: 5784 Valle Pike Submitted: 08/30/95 IL Approved: 11/0795 Wheatiands Wastewater Facility SP Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (RS) Location: So. West of Double Toll ate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: ILEeingheld ata licant's request, Flex Tech (SP) Stonewall M1 Use on 11 Ac. M1 Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Bein held ata licant's request. HCM.F Development Corp. (Van Gilder's Nursing Home) (SP) Stonewall Addition on 1.6 Acres (RP) Location: 1011 Pennsylvania Avenue Submitted: 05/30/95 Approved: Pendin consolidation 21at by owner. Sherando High Sch=SPO e uon Addition (RA) Location: Rt. 277 Submitted: 09/20/95 [Approved: Pendin Macedonia United (SP) Methodist Church Addition Shawnee Church on 5+ Acres (RA) Location: 1941 Macedonia Church Rd., White Post Submitted: 07/31/95 Approved: PendingJ CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Joseph W. Edmiston CUP Back Creek I Kennel RA Location: 1293 Hollow Road, Westview Estates, Lot 5 Submitted: 09/07/95 PC Review: 10/04/95 - Approved BOS Review: 10/25/95 -Tabled; 11/08/95 -Dented Edward E. Sutphin (CUP) Opequon Cottage Occupation/ Small Engine Repair RA Location: 1179 Hudson Hollow Rd., Stephens Cit Submitted: 11/09/95 PC Review: 12/06/95 BOS Review: U01/10/95 VARIANCES: Frank G. Iddings (VAR) Shawnee 4.7' front yard variance for existing dwelling (RP) Location: 113 Clearwater Court Submitted: 11/01/95 BZA Review: 12/19/95 10 Sherando High School VAR Opequon 7' side yard for addition (RA) Location: 185 S. Warrior Drive Submitted: 10/27/95 BZA Review: L 11/21/95 - A roved James Sirbaugh (VAR) Back Creek2' right side yard variance for existin house RA Location: 280 Perry Road Submitted: 10/23/95 BZA Review: 11/21/95 - Approved William M. Battaile (VAR) Gainesboro 35' right & rear variance for a dwelling RA Location: Lake St. Clair Drive in Lake St. Clair Submitted: 10/11/95 BZA Review: 11/21/95 - Approved Gary J. Kerns (VAR) Back Creek 23' front yd & 4' right side yd for attached garage Location: 168 Woodchuck Lane (Rt. 654 Submitted: 09/08/95 BZA Review: 11/21/95 - Tabled; 11/21/95 - Denied 11 lE. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT -ACTIVITY REPORT #93 (NQv. 1-15) 1. Transportation Evan Wyatt prepared the final draft of the 1996-1997 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. This plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors and will be forwarded to the Staunton District Office for funding considerations. Evan Wyatt responded to several citizen concerns regarding VDOT improvements to Front Royal Pike, as well as maintenance practices along secondary roads. This information is documented and has been forwarded to the Edinburg Residency. 2. Battlefield Preservation Bob Watkins met with Dr. Hirshberg from the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation to discuss the Battlefield Network Plan.. 3. GIS/Mapning Evan Wyatt updated the Round Hill Community Center Study mapping in response to the final meetings of the CPPC. 4. Plan. Reviews. Approvals, and Site Inspections Wayne Miller reviewed and tentatively approved two major rural subdivisions being developed under the rural preservation requirements. A site plan for an addendum to the Winchester Electric facility located in the Fort Collier Industrial Park was approved. A site plan for the Southern States facility located along Valley Pike was approved. A site plan for the Power Tech addition located off of Route 37 was approved. Evan Wyatt reviewed the following site1p_ ans: Revisions to the James Wood High School addition located along Apple Pie Ridge revisions to the Power Tech addition site plan located off of Route 37; and revisions to the Negleyland site plan located along Welltown Road. Page 2 BOS Activity Report #93 November 1-15 Evan Wyatt conducted the following'_ site inspections: The 84 Lumber Company site located along Amoco Lane; Carlyle and Anderson located along Berryville Pike; Franklin Mobile Home Park located along Eckard Circle; Preston Place II located along Airport Road; and Fredericktowne Estates - Sections 8 & 9. 5. Meetings Bob Watkins met with G. W. Clifford's Chuck Maddox and Winchester City Planning Director, Tim Youmans, to discuss a road development proposal. Bob also attended the Virginia Rural Planning Caucus conference. Wayne Miller met with Bill Bushman, Jerry Copp and other VDOT representatives to discuss requirements needing to be considered for the VDOT site plan being developed for their new facility on Route 50 west. Wayne met with seven citizens to discuss and help them with desired land division problems. Wayne also met with John Toney and representatives from Greenway Inc. to discuss requirements for a rural preservation subdivision that Mr. Toney is developing. Evan Wyatt had the following meetings with: Evan Wyatt met with Tim Painter to discuss proposed improvements to the Estes Trucking facility located along Baker Lane and to the Albin Ridge Mini Storage facility located along Indian Hollow Road. Evan Wyatt and Mike Ruddy met with Jeff Butler to discuss the requirements for an off premise business sign for Donald B. Rice Tire Co. This sign is proposed to be located on the Lyle P. Strosnyder site along Valley Pike. Evan met with Jess Moffett and project engineers to discuss site plan requirements associated with the proposed water tank construction on the west side of Route 37 across from the Winchester Medical Center. This proposal will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Page 3 BOS Activity Report #93 November 1-15 Board of Supervisors for information. Evan met with Merchant McDonald to discuss requirements for the Whitehall Business Park master development plan and for the Flying J site plan. Evan met with Ed Strawsnyder and John Trenary to work on language that will require location surveys for structures that are located within specific distances to building restriction lines, as well as information pertaining to infrastructure improvements for consideration by the development and design community. Evan participated in a Technical Review Committee meeting to consider proposals for an addition to the Doerwalt Dentist facility located along Fairfax Pike, as well as a proposal to develop a new warehouse facility in the Aero -Center industrial properties located along Victory Road. 6. Zoning Violations Wayne Miller investigated six zoning violations. Four were found to be valid and require corrective action. Wayne also filed criminal charges on three people for unabated zoning violations. 7. Planning Department Personnel Michael T. Ruddy was hired to fill the vacant Planner I position in the Planning Department and began work on November 6, 1995. 8. Other Evan Wyatt provided the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission with information pertaining to residential, commercial, and industrial development. The LFPDC will utilize this data in their work with the town of Strasburg in creating new development standards. Evan provided the Stephens City Planning Commission and the Stephens City Planning Department with information regarding the Interstate Area Overlay District and the property Page 4 BOS Activity Report #93 November 1-15 designation process. This information is intended to educate the town representatives, as well as address concerns that have been expressed. Evan has offered to meet with representatives of the town to present this information prior to final consideration by the Board in December. P/C Review Date: REZONING 11/02/94: Tabled P/C Review Date: 12/07/94: Tabled P/C Review Date: 03/01/95: Tabled P/C Review Date: 04/05/95: Tabled P/C Review Date: 04/19/95: Tabled P/C Review Date: 11/01/95: Tabled P/C Review Date: 2/06/95: 12/06/95.- REZONING APPLICATION #008-94 JAMES CARROLL To Rezone'2.81 Acres From RP (Residential Performance) - To B2 (Business General) LOCATION: From Interstate 81 approximately .75 miles east of the City of Winchester, turn Ieft onto Custer Avenue, property is located at the intersection of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64A -4-20A, 64A -10-A, 64A -10-B PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance); present use: vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance), present use: residential and vacant PROPOSED USE: Business and Commercial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Deet. of Trinsnortation: See attached comments dated 09/28/94. Page 2 Rezoning #008-94 Fire Marshal: Hydrants must all be on designated fire lane. (1) Will address specific fire department issues on site plan. (2) Applicant should address fire and rescue impacts based on County's computer model available from Planning Department staff. County Engineer: We have no comments at this time. However, we reserve the right to perform a detailed review at the time of a site plan submittal. County Attorney No comment. PLANNING:. Location: The property is located within the Urban Development Area, in close proximity to an interstate interchange. The future land use map within the recently completed report on Frederick County business corridors shows this area of Route 50 as being a business/office use. B-2 zoning would not be out of line with this categorization. Site Suitability: The parcel is relatively level with no steep slopes or other environmentally sensitive features as defined by the County's Zoning Ordinance. Sewer and water are available to the parcel. Potential Impacts: Impacts from the proposed rezoning would not differ greatly from those that would be expected from development under the current RP zoning of the property. The traffic generated under B-2 zoning would be expected to be greater than under RP, however, the difference as a percentage of existing traffic would not be significant. The applicant has proffered that there would be no entrance on Etnam Drive and there would be a total of no more than five entrances to the site. The applicant has not eliminated any of the uses allowed under B-2 zoning. The County's impact model forecasts a net fiscal gain to the County with the exception of a cost for the unfunded portion of fire and rescue services which is forecasted at $1947.25. This amount is contrary to the applicant's impact statement which forecasts the cost at $757.00. This difference appears to be in part a result of the applicant generating a per acre cost rather than a total for the entire 2.8 acres. Page 3 Rezoning 9008-94 The cost for fire and rescue services under the current RP (Residential Performance) zoning as forecasted by the model is $648.80, with the cost difference being $1298.45. The applicant has not proffered a.contribution to cover this cost. Conclusion: The proposed zoning conforms to the proposed future land use map developed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee and proposed for adoption as a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The County's impact model, however, projects a cost to fire and rescue services which has not been offset by the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 11/02/94 PC MEETING: Denial, based on the cost impacts to Fire & Rescue of the proposed zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF 11/02/94: The applicant revised their proffer statement to include an increased emergency services payment to Fire & Rescue that matched the County's impact model. The applicant also presented a survey of the four lots proposed to clear up any discrepancy on which lots were involved in the rezoning. Fifteen residents of the Pembridge Heights Subdivision came forward to speak in opposition. The residents spoke about the heavy traffic inthis area and felt the addition of a business at the entrance to their subdivision would only add to their traffic problems. They also felt that the existing access road to Route 50, Custer Avenue (Rt. 781), was inadequate. A petition was submitted containing 199 signatures of residents of the Pembridge Heights Subdivision who were in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. James H. Carroll, the property owner, said he had an informal discussion with the Planing Commission at the time Pembridge Heights was being developed, to ask if the Commission would grant him commercial zoning if he gave the developers a right-of-way through his property to Route 50. Mr. Carroll felt that the Commission's feeling were favorable toward rezoning at that time. The Commission felt that traffic was going to be a major consideration at this location and that the intersection at Route 50 and Custer Avenue (Rt. 681) was dangerous. It was noted that the applicant had offered no pians to modify the existing street network. Commissioners pointed out that residential traffic would have to pass through the proposed commercial area in order to get to the residential area. Some Commissioners felt they could support a B 1 zoning or a B2 zoning, if intense uses were proffered out; other commissioners felt it was too late to put commercial zoning Page 4 Rezoning #008-94 here, since most of the homes in Pembridge Heights had already been built and sold. The Commission tabled the rezoning for 30 days or until December 7, 1994 by unanimous vote. (Mr. Wilson was absent) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF 12/07/94: Applicant requested tabling the application until the March 1, 1995 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF 03/01/95: Applicant requested tabling the application until the April 5, 1995 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF 04/05/95: Applicant requested tabling the application until the April 19 , 1995 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF 04/05/95: Mr. Charles Maddox, Jr., project consultant, presented a proposal for an access from Rt. 50 into the area north of this property towards Senseny Road which would include a side access into Pembridge Heights. He said that Custer Avenue would be reconfigured to create a 90 degree intersection far enough away from Rt. 50 to allow sufficient room for stacking of vehicles. Mr. Maddox said that this was a significant infrastructure project and money for the project would have to be acquired from other sources besides Mr. Carroll's proposed project. Mr. Maddox felt it would be about a year or two before he could present a formal proffer because of the extensive work needed for surveying, abandonment, and rededication of right-of-ways. The Commission unanimously tabled the rezoning for two weeks at the applicant's request. PLANNING COMNITSSTON SUMMARY AND ACTION OF 04/19/95: Mr. Charles Maddox, Jr., project consultant, requested that the Commission table the rezoning for six months in order to accomplish the work necessary to establish acceptable proffers and to determine the feasibility of their approach to solving the problems identified with this site. Mr. Maddox requested that the Commission agree to provide a positive recommendation to the Board because of the substantial financial investment involved in this approach. A number of Commissioners felt that some of the B2 uses would not be appropriate for this area and would need to be proffered out. Most of the Commissioners had positive feelings about rezoning, if a safe and attractive Page 5 Rezoning #008-94 entrance road off of Rt. 50 could be accomplished to accommodate the traffic that will ultimately come to this area. The Commission unanimously tabled the rezoning for six months at the applicant's request. (Mr. DeHaven abstained.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF 11/01/95 MTG-: Tabled for 30 days at applicants request. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (7031984-5600 FAX(703)984-5607 VDOT COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REZONING - JAMES CARROLL PROPERTY 09/28/94 No objections to the rezoning of this property from RP to B-2. Commercial development of this property along with further development of the Prince Frederick Business Park on the south side of Route 50 could have a significant impact on the adjacent Route 50/781 intersection. Intersection improvements and possible signalization may be required to accommodate additional traffic. The upgrading of Route 781 from Route 50 may also be necessary. Prior to development a complete set of site plans which detail entrance designs, drainage improvements and trip generation from the I. TE. Manual, 41h Edition will be required for review. A storm water system will need to be provided to accommodate the existing drainage outfall ditch and easement which crosses the property. Any work performed on VDOT right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. VDOT Signature and Date - xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. J. B. Diamond (FYI) 4 6Ufde-4� 09/28/94 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff. - Zoning Amendment Number Date Received 10"-1 BOS Hearing Date -� '4 PC Hearing Date i -5 The following information shall be provided by the applicant.- All pplicant. All parcel identification numbers, decd book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 23 Court Square, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: James H. 0arroll c%o Stephen _ Cvurisin �L�-� L11 `Z Address: '.'ilbert 4. C:liffora & Associates Inc. 200 r7. Cameron street, Winchester, VA 22601 Telephone: 0 -W6 -21 Fax: 6015-o493 2. Representative: Name Same As Above Telephone: 3. Owner: Name: James H. Carroll c/o Stephen M;. :;yurisin Address: Albert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. 200 S. Cameron Street Winchester VA 22601 Telephonc:r03-667-2139 12 The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezonir applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: James H. Carroll 4. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed from hp to B-2 5. Current Use of the Property: Vacan t 6. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING E4-hoo-0000-oli3o u4-Aou-0000-aono c4-404-0000-oo2Go µ 64A-oolo-0001-20A t Vacant vacant Residential Residenial Mi HF 11D RP 7. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Approxi.ately .75 iles east of the City of wincheszer at 1-81. N:_rth of R. uLe 50 east ^n Rc,ute 781 at Penbri_ige Road, 13 S. Parcel Identification: 14 Digit Tax Parcel Number. 64A n0�04 000 20.A 9. Magisterial District: Shawnee 10. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned. Total Area: 2.8132 Acres The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted: 2.8132 Acres Rezoned from EF to B-2 Acres Rezoned from to Acres Rezoned from to Acres Rezoned from to 11. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed: Conveyed from: Buckley-Lages, Inc./brcwnell, In:. Deed Book Number 308/341 Pages_ 022/706 12. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses. 13. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Plat x Deed to property X Statement verifying taxes paid X Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement �C Proffer Statement 14 14. Signature: I (we), the undersigned. do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County of iiciais to enter ci,e p_,rpeny for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials arc true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant: Owner Date: 15 INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT MODEL In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 8 of the application package. The following information should be provided regardless of the type of rezoning: Fire Service District: Rescue Service District: Total Proposed Non -Residential Lots/Buildings: :rPanvnnri Greenwcoa N/A The following information should be provided with any residential rezoning: Elementary School District: Middle School District: High School District: Number of Single Family Dwellings Proposed: Number of Townhouse Dwellings Proposed: Number of Multi -Family Dwellings Proposed: Number of Mobile Home Units Proposed: Armel Freaericx C.,= Jazzes Wood N/A N/A NIA N/A The following information should be provided with any commercial/industrial rezoning or with a residential/commercial (P.U.D.) rezoning: Gross Office Square Footage: Retail Square Footage: Restaurant Square Footage: Service Station Square Footage: Manufacturing Square Footage: Warehouse Square Footage: Hotel Rooms: There are no specific uses -or souare footage (r„aximt n or inimum ) planned at this time. A site development plan, in accord with all —z on - nor raQtil at i nng i i 11 ha prp arpa at time of �ieveloDiient 16 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land proposed to be rezoned will be notified of the public hearing. For the purposes of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property or any property directly across a road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 14 -digit property identification number which may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Department. ame Address and Property Identification I • Address: 3792 Melody Lane Hagerstown, MD Eawar:: k. Miller, Et Al Pro ID: Property 4000-Aoo-0000-01130 _ • Address: Rt. 6, Box 203 Arndlu J. &Lottie Bartley Winchester, VA 226U Property ID- 64AOo-001-0 00-00200 Address: 355 South Pto:;.ac Street Winchester Lutdoor HaIM FiD 41010 Advert,: -sin--. Property ID:64o00-A00-0000-00c Address: 130 Etna,q ' rive i.dwar:: F.,Jr. & "Ay L. Hunt Winchester, 'dA .2602 Property ID: 64A -0010-0001-20A • Address: 127 Etnarn Drive James L., II! & lizabeth D. inchester, VA 22602 Harman Properly ID: 64A-0! 10-0001-183 • Address: 131 Etnam :,;rive Michael & Shannon Watson Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID: 64A-0010-0001-184 • Address: 133 Etnam Lrive Jung Uhul & Ja.oie Hong Shin Winchester, T" 22602 Property ID: 64«-ooio-0:.,o1- • Address: 104 : enbridge Lrive Scott R. & Paige D. Clark dinchester, V.A. 22602 Property ID: 64A-0010-0001-001 9 Address: loo Fe. bridge Drive Stephen W. Rhinehardt Winchester, VA 22602 Property 1D:64A-001'-0001-002 fF GOO Raw PEMBRIDGE HEIGHTS PHASE I "AM Mn, 5 AMENDMENT ACTION.• PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6. 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: AN ORDINANCE "ENDING. THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP #008-94 of JAMES T. CARROLL WHEREAS, Rezoning Application #008-94 of James T Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General), and which is located at the intersection of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road, designated with PINS 64A -4-20A, 64A -10-A, and 64A -10-B, in the Shaivnee Magisterial District, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on December 6, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on : anti, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 2.81 acres, designated by PINS 64A -4120A, 64A -10-A, and 64A -10-B, from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and property owner: PROFFER (Revised) CARROLL REZONING 1N3;W413,t3Q tI?V+l `JNINNY11i 19 1JIG V661 CASE NO. 008-94 1-0 _ + -C6 I, the undersigned, JAMES H. CARROLL sole owner of the land to be rezoned under zoning request number 008-94, referred to as the Carroll Rezoning and the applicant for said rezoning, hereby voluntarily proffer the following conditions. The conditions proffered shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest .of the undersigned. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants said rezoning to B-2 (Business General) and accepts these conditions, the following proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code: 1. There shall be no entrance to the property on Etnam Street. 2. There will be a total of no more than five (5) entrances for the property. 3. The Owner proffers a payment shall be made to the County for emergency services in the amount of $1,950.00, said payment to be made at time of building permit issuance by the County. James H. Carroll Date This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage - Passed this day of____, 1995. Richard G. Dick Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Charles W. Orraloff, Sr. Tmmie R Ellington James L Longerbeam Robert M. Sager A Copy Attest John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY Shawnee Magisterial District AUGUST 1, 1994 gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 • Fax: 703-665-0493 ACTANALYSIS STATEMENT REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY AUGUST 1994 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS L SUMMARY 3 IL INTRODUCTION 3 IIL PLANNING ANALYSIS 4 • Site Suitability • Adjoining Properties • Zoning Review IV. TRAFFIC 5 V. SEWAGE 6 VI. WATER 6 VII. DRAINAGE i VIII. SOLID WASTE 7 IX HISTORIC SITES g X. COMMUNITY FACILITIES g • Education • Emergency Services • Parks and Recreation • Other XI, ENVIRONMENT 9 XII. FISCAL 9 XIIL OTHER 9 APPENDIX 10 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT for James H. Carroll Property I. Summary . 'ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY AUGUST 1994 The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to evaluate the above referenced project in light of several major planning issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This document is prepared in support of and in preparation to rezone the referenced property from present Residential Performance (RP) to General Business (B-2). The property is suited for General Business (B-2) zoning. There is a positive fiscal impact. Current zoning requirements allow for adequate measures to provide for buffers and screens that would mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Neighborhood traffic impacts have been minimized with proffers limiting entrances. II Introduction The 2.8132 acre property of James H. Carroll is located at the intersection of Route 781 and Pembridge Drive, just north of Route 50 and east, approximately .75 miles, of the City of Winchester corporate boundary at I-81. The property is currently vacant and is divided by Pembridge Drive creating two parcels. Both parcels are identified as tax parcel 64A -0004-0000-20A and are currently zoned Residential Performance (RP). General Business (B-2) zoning is planned for the property. The property is located in the Urban Development Area is part of an interchange business area and is part of a corridor area planned for future business. Preliminary site development planning indicates that this site can support most General Business (B-2) uses while providing adequate protection space for zoning buffer areas. . .'ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY AUGUST 1994 III. Planning Analysis Site Suitability - The property has no site specific development limiting factors. The property appears well suited for General Business (B-2) zoning use development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 36 as Weikert- Berks channery silt loams. Prime Agricultural Soils: The property does not contain any prime agricultural soils as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Slopes - There are no steep slopes on this property. The topography is ideally suited for General Business type development. Slopes generally range from 2% to 7% and elevations range from 659 to 678 feet above sea level. Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property. The property is generally well drained and has no low lying wet areas that wetland vegetation that indicates the presence of a wetland area. Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property. Flood Plain - The property is not located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plain as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map number 510063- 00115B of the United States department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Boundary map. Ad -joining Properties - Development impact concerns are primarily north of the property where single family residential houses are located across Etnam and Pembridge Drives. The impacts of the General -Business (B-2) uses on the surrounding residential uses is greatly reduced through existing zoning distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations. A 35' building setback is required, and; in addition, a 50' distance buffer is required with a full screen. A proffer is suggested that restricts entrances/driveways on Etnam Drive and limits the total number of access points to five. 4 +. . 4CTANALYSIS STATEMENT REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY AUGUST 1994 The adjoining property to the north is single family residential detached urban houses part of Pembridge Heights subdivision, zoned Residential Performance (RP). To the east is vacant open land zoned Residential Performance (RP) and currently undeveloped. To the south is State Route 781, and to the west is a mix of older single family, detached residential houses and vacant lots. Zoning Review - The property is currently zoned Residential Performance (RP) allowing by right a variety of housing types. Approximately four to eighteen homes are permitted depending on the type of housing planned. Front yard setbacks, buffers, screens and parking would be required under the RP zoning codes. Driveways for each house would be permitted throughout the property. Under the General Business (B-2) zoning regulations a variety of office and service uses are permitted. Approximately 12 to 15 % or about 18,000 square feet of the site may be used for business structures, the remainder of the property would be used for parking and required open areas such as buffers and storm management. The B-2 floor area to lot ratio is 1.0. The minimum landscaped area is 15% or about 18,000 square feet. The maximum height of any building is 35 feet_ Required setbacks are 35 feet. The impacts of the General -Business (B-2) uses on the surrounding residential uses is greatly reduced through existing zoning distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations. IV. Traffic Impacts Traffic impacts are negligible for this property. Impacts of vehicular access and turning movements on the residential area north of the property have been removed with the proffer that eliminates all vehicular entrances on Etnam Drive. The estimated 16,500 square feet of retail floor space created by this property will result in approximately 210 trips per weekday of traffic. based on ITE Trip Generation figures. The subject project will not originate trips since trip generation is a function of residential use. By removing the approximate 3 acres of land from residential performance and considering 2.5 dwelling units per acre density for single family, which is the adjacent use, the increase is only 125 trips per day. W 'ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY AUGUST 1994 Most traffic would enter the site via Route 781 and Route 50. The site is ideally suited for access at the junction between Pembridge Drive, State Route 781 and U.S. Route 50. Most of the traffic using the site will use U.S. Route 50 and VA Route 781. The increase on both these roads of 10 trips per hour is negligible. V. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems with this property. The sewage from this property will connect with the regional interceptor system at Route 50 and be pumped to the Opequon Regional Facility. Flows generated from this complex are estimated by the State Health Department at 3300 (200gpd/1000SF) gallons per day with an instantaneous flow at peak of 6 gallons per minute. All sewage conveyance systems involved have full capability to handle this additional flow, as does the plant have the capability of treating and discharging this flow in satisfactory manor. It should be pointed out that by right, that 7 units of development available on this property under current zoning would produce 3,000 gallons per day of wastewater. VI. Water Supply Impacts There are no water supply or transmission problems for this property. This property would connect to the existing 8" water supply system located in Pembridge Heights. There are no known limitations in the water system which would preclude the use of the property as shown. The property will utilize the same amount of water as projected in sewage flow or 3300 gallons per day. Fire protections measures such as the installation of fire hydrants will be addressed at the site development planning stage. The installation of fire protection hydrants poses no problems. The installation of fire hydrants on the property will improve the fire protection means of the surrounding properties as well. 6 .PACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY AUGUST 1994 VII. Drainage Facility Impacts Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal or no site drainage impacts. The development of commercial in lieu of residential will increase run off in small amounts over that which would be created in residential use. It is recommended that either suitable green space be allowed to reduce run off amounts or that the increased run off would be reduced prior to discharge from the site. In lieu of the above, additional storm water detention calculations should be presented with final design which would show no adverse impacts created by the imposition of this increase storm water on the existing downstream water course. Drainage flows generally toward State Route 781 and Route 50, crossing under Route 50 to the south -side of the road. Predevelopment runoff rates will be maintained using recognized storm water management standards. VIII. Solid Waste Cost There are no solid waste collection and disposal impacts. Solid waste will be exported by contract hauler at no cost to the County. No additional solid waste facilities will be required to handle the waste from this property. Impacts to the County will be reduced with the planned B-2 rezoning. Under the current RP zoning and assuming 7 housing units on the property, the estimated cost of $1400.00 for solid waste disposal impacts is needed. The planned B-2 zoning change would result in a reduction of impacts since there would be no collection fees and since tipping fees are designed by the County to cover the expenses of solid waste disposal. 7 . ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY AUGUST 1994 IX. Historic Impacts This project will not involve the loss of any historic buildings, sites or artifacts that are known. The area has been significantly developed on all sides and no such findings of historic importance has been identified. There are no structures currently located on this property. A review of the National Register, the Virginia Landmarks Register and The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are no known historic structures or sites on this property. X. Community Facilities The property when zoned B-2 will generate tax revenues with a net worth of approximately $60.00 per square foot and a tax base of $990,000 which totals at a tax rate of $.60 approximately $594.00 per year of tax revenue. Education - This project will generate no school children and therefore have no effect on educational cost in Frederick County. Capitol cost impacts for school age children will be reduced since no school children will result with B-2 zoning. The current zoning of RP, with 7 units would produce about 7 school age children. Parks and Recreation - This project would result in no impact on Parks and Recreational facilities. Emerggengy Services Cost - There are no additional fire, rescue or sheriff facilities anticipated with the development of the property using B-2 type uses. Fire protection is available from the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company. The planned B-2 rezoning will have all required site development standards required by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no fire protection problems associated with this property. All hydrants and fire protection measures will be installed when the property is developed. Rescue services are provided by the Winchester Rescue Squad with future service from the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company. 8 ACTANALYSIS STATEMENT REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST JAMES 14 CARRO L PROPERTY AUGUST 1994 Sheriff Department services protection will be required by this facility. Routine patrols of the Pembridge area should suffice for the majority of time and materials necessary to cover this facility. M. Environmental Impacts There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including run off sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. A minor increase in run off quantity and a decrease in quality is probable from this development. The effects on the down -stream impoundment and stream are minimal and in accordance with local and state regulations. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for security and business use. These should be closely controlled during planning stage to minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent residential structures and impacts on the traveling public. XII. Fiscal Impacts Fiscal impacts for the property are determined based upon the fiscal impact model prepared by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development staff. The model assumes 16,500 square feet of retail floor space. The square footage assumption figure may change, but should have no significant influence on the model output. XIII.Other This planned zoning change would create a positive fiscal impact as compared to the existing zoning. There are no known other impacts. R r4or Aj:W nIN JA -H Cl�b fill J- 40 <: 4 Siena ..'egg, ah C r- 4 . Aj- Wate, INNER .4 ni v lu 44 4 N-J Pro 'ec A" ale Valley i .VGolf Club If 8M7 41 C, 0 N1 40 'F'v W-ncheste' M.n.c'vaf aw C"7 if fi 7 l 1z" J Giber t W. Clifford and Associates 200 N. Cameron Street 1- PROPERTY LOCATION MAP Winchester, Virginia, 22601 703-667-2139 oNr 2 BOUNDARY SURVEY PUBR/DGE H47GH75 - PHASE I Parcel IPoe i9' Nlr Edward X. ,UdJer V l JAMES H. CARROLL � 4 � 1 'y TM Ins 64A (4) P0. 20A v 1 f oa - mo 141 10' Temporary Construction Easement 4 10Permanent Water Easement NOTES: 1. No Title Report furnished. 2. Boundary information was taken from public records and not field verified. T H pF L g S. N. MARSH Z ❑ CERTIFICATE NO. 1843 a VA. SEC. R TE 781 PIAT SHOWING 10' PERMANEN T WA TER EA SEMEN T cnd 10' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT through the land of JAMES H. CARROLL 08 622 - Pg 308 to be acquired by FREDERICK COUNTY SANT TA TION AUTHORI TY Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia DATE: August 1992 gilbert ENGINEERS 50—C Olde Greenwich Drive 'redericksburg, Virginia 22401 703) 898-2115 SCALE: I"=100' Plot No. 9354 -IX -1 w. clifford & associates, inc. LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-2139 W JCu ly 7� i� • MIGY!' � �.. W• I�. t i PEMBR�GY,E O!cirre J A, . l � � 6iS S•T ^� 3. REQ, jRDED SUBDIVISION PLAT :Uiti� uU� 5 L �Uj 9 U. v � • � �u 7 .SCE SOT E�1,�C�`lE'N! � PE��BR/DQE !�/E/GRITS-P.�,�ASE I sJ1A1,,in,EE asrRJCr F�C'EOE.CiC.r couN/'"Y, V/!CG//V/.q o• '�i" bixca�rr uC IM2 ;+ i c j , • PACIULLI, SIMMONS, 3 ASSOCIATCS, LTO. 305 S. Harrison Street, Suite 200, Lccsburg, Virrvinf:; 22075 ' •70�-717-:7�� • 17;,�t:�i5 f n<�uu�la':. f'Lu�nl•1•� `�ur;r,,,Iti r� •n, Vl�la� ire ��- if ��j ^e ° C b\ 7 _• ° E .. C •t Ft:Ar .SCE SOT E�1,�C�`lE'N! � PE��BR/DQE !�/E/GRITS-P.�,�ASE I sJ1A1,,in,EE asrRJCr F�C'EOE.CiC.r couN/'"Y, V/!CG//V/.q o• '�i" bixca�rr uC IM2 ;+ i c j , • PACIULLI, SIMMONS, 3 ASSOCIATCS, LTO. 305 S. Harrison Street, Suite 200, Lccsburg, Virrvinf:; 22075 ' •70�-717-:7�� • 17;,�t:�i5 f n<�uu�la':. f'Lu�nl•1•� `�ur;r,,,Iti r� Location Map for PIN; 64A -4--20A James Carroll Rezoning #008--94 P/C Review Date: 12/06/95 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #012-95 EDWARD SUTPHIN COTTAGE OCCUPATION FOR SMALL ENGINE REPAIR LOCATION: This property is located at 1179 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, Virginia. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 86-2-9 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), Land use - residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Land use - residential PROPOSED USE: Small engine repair REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: No objection to a conditional use permit for this property. However, prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 31, Use Group S (Storage) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993. Other codes that apply are titled 24 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. Shall require a change of use permit for buildings or areas of existing buildings to be utilized. Page 2 Edward Sutphin CUP #012-95 Fire Marshall: Access to all structures must be maintained at all times. Health Department: No objection as long as the owner is the sole employee and there is no increase in water use. The drainfield for this property was functioning properly on 10/10/95. Planning Department: The requested cottage occupation can be permitted with an approved CUP. The decision on making a recommendation for any specific CUP is normally based on the location of the desired activity. If the use has no significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood and can operate under the recommended conditions, staff would usually recommend approval. This request presents somewhat of a dilemma in that there is a zoning violation of such a magnitude that it can easily overwhelm any consideration of whether this could be an appropriate location for the requested use. Based on the distance of this location in relation to other residences, it would appear that this would be an acceptable location for the desired use. The zoning violation that exists consists of a very large area where several hundred old lawn mowers, lawn trimmers and other apparatus are openly stored. This entire area is visible from Hudson Hollow Road (Route 636) and from two private roads that run along both sides of the property. Any consideration of this request must include the requirement that the zoning violation be eliminated from the property. The magnitude of the violation is such that it will take considerable time and effort to accomplish this. Correction of the violation will require that all outside storage be removed from the property, placed inside an enclosed building or totally screened from view from any roadway or any adjoining property. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the following conditions: This permit will not be effective until the zoning violation is eliminated from the property. If this is not completed within six months, this permit will be automatically revoked. 2. All repair work must be done inside a completely enclosed building. No outside storage of parts, salvaged equipment, or equipment awaiting repair shall be allowed unless it is properly screened from view from any roadway or adjoining property. Page 3 Edward Sutphin CUP #012-95 4. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday thru Saturday. 5. Any construction of facilities to accommodate this use or any other expansion of the use shall require a new CUP. CUP #012-95 PIN:86-2-9 Edward Sutphin Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PIE I. Applicant (The applicant if the J n,, owner other) NAME: L Edward E . Sut hin ADDRESS: 1179 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, Va. 22655 TELEPHONE 869 0527 2. Please list all owners; occupants orV the property: parties in interest of George Sutphin -- Brother of owner. 3. The property is located -'t: (please give exact'directions and include the route number of your road or street) 7 tenths of mile South of Rt. 277 on Hudson Hollow Rd.(636), Stephens City,Va. 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of 384.20 feet and consists of (Please be exact) acres. 5. The property is owned by Edward E. Sutphin as evidenced by deed from BK787 PG1810 i.11iam rene orded (previous owner) in deed book no . 787 on page 18� 12 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 86000-2-0000-0009 Magisteriai District _ ppecTuon Current Zoning _RA _ 7. Adjoining Property: North East . South �n'e,:; Farm Wooded lotlot 4 .. RA RA 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) rntfiagP _ C]r•ciptinn - Small ar)ainP in an accessory building. 9. It is proposed that the following bui,�ldings1 will be constructed*: None. f 0 , 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and in front of (also across street from) the property 'where requested use will be conducted. (Continue_ on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST -COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME [Lewis Address 1225 Hudson Hollow Rd. Stephens City, Va.22655 Property ID# & Betty YOUNG 86000-2-0000-0001 David Leo & Janet C. BARB Address 554 Wardensville Grade Property ID# 86000--2-0000-0010 Tolbert T. &Mary E. ASHBY Address 1281 Hudson Hollow Rd.,Stephens City, Va. 22655 Property ID# 86000-2-0000-0002 Janet M. BARR Address 554 Wardensville Grade ifinc-hec,�et, vet. 22692 Property ID# 86000-A-0000-0217 Samuel & Abstine WALKER Address L yL6y+ „ y� 2330 3RD St. Va. 22645 Property ID# 86000-A-0000-0210 Address 1086 Hudson Hollow Rd. ,Stephens City, Va. 2265 Raymond E. CHATEAUNENENF 86000-A-0000-0213 THIS IS TO CERTIFY v?A'T ON SFFTE BER 2�, 1992 1 MALE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF TIE PREMISES 7Y_0'W t' :MEON AND T.iAT THERE !�r.'E NO F,ASL"!ENTS OR ENCROACMyIENTS VISIBLE O"J, THE GROUND OTHER. TH-,M THOSE SHOWN �EREON. TFIS IAT DOES NOT FALL IN A FLOOD HAZARD ZONE. 6X l RECORD PLAT IS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 378 AT PAGE 515. a 3 H LOT 10 IAF - 25024'spr W 402-22' O N .wl 00 x w LJ >. 0 Z n Ln: LOT 9 3.184 ACRES POOL I STORY 253.91 ,%o. 20 N 2S r50 "F26g 3 STAFF ROUTE (30' WI0e) �3 IPF CV m W z M m 3 0 o r �J� t LLJ LL Q R=26.41' IPF R=44.26 LOT 9 SECTIO+ 2 ,. E r i,NESD OPEOGON D:STRIC* F'REDERrC< CO`iNTY. VT,,.;IN1= m .'m1 "{iat'st ut!?'',�;�Vr•.�1's�g7�-�..i�7il�e Yumzilllk FREDERICK COUNTY, SC"T. Th!7 1nitrunienl of wt'1" g Was ;?, /W,u °.0 M4C�" VIA/ +.. .PoY:AI.t"�`llR.f'.✓'s;._:5.:".$`�l�ix:KL:w....s... .... w...., ..:.t,.. ,.. .f �:i. .... ..,. .. .. -,. M':' ,.. .�... . .. rr.:f.rw'�: ar.:r.w.w.r.aa+.-....,.-�..--. .,....�..—...�.-.�.. .....�� .'m1 "{iat'st ut!?'',�;�Vr•.�1's�g7�-�..i�7il�e Yumzilllk FREDERICK COUNTY, SC"T. Th!7 1nitrunienl of wt'1" g Was ;?, /W,u °.0 M4C�" VIA/ r 12. Additional comments, if any: N/A' I i I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully juke application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning. Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Z-,Zt-4� J-.. -X,-: Signature of Owner L9tI-=Z _ ,�- Owners' Mailing Address 1179 Hudson Hollow Rd., Stephins City, Va. 22655 Owners' Telephone No. 540-869-0527 USE CODE: AXNEWAL DATE: P/C Review Date: 12/06/95 REZONING APPLICATION #006-95 WOODSIDE ESTATES To Rezone 36.4589 Acres From RA (Rural Areas) To RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of Double Churches Road (Route 641) and south of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 86-(A)-02100 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas); Land Use: vacant rural area. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance): Land Use: Agricultural, residential and vacant. PROPOSED USE: Single Family Homes REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. 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, Fourth Edition for review. Any work performed on the States' right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Sanitation Authority: We have an eight -inch water line on the west side of Route 641. Page 2 Woodside Estates Rezoning #006-95 Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia USBC and the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Shall comment on the use group at the time of structural plan review. Fire Marshal: Fire and Rescue safety issues will be addressed at the time of subdivision review. County Attorney The owner's signature needs to be notarized and the representative's signature may or may not be notarized. Parks & Recreation: No comment on the request at this time. _Town of Stephens City: Traffic implications and improvements to I-81 intersection must be considered and moved forward in time. Traffic backups are becoming more frequent and longer in duration. County Engineer: See attached letter dated November 9, 1995. Planning & Zoning: Location: The parcel is located partially within the Urban Development Area. Roughly half of the southern end of the property lies south of the boundary. Site Suitability: The parcel is relatively level and contains no environmental features as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Sewer and Water is available to the parcel. The impact analysis provided by the applicant states that the soils are Berks channery and Blairton Silt loams and that these are suitable for development purposes. There is also some Clearbrook channery present on the site. The soil survey of Frederick County indicates that of the soils present, all have moderate to severe limitations for building site development. Moderate limitation is defined as "soil properties and site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations." Severe limitation is defined as "soil properties are so unfavorable or so Page 3 Woodside Estates Rezoning #006-95 difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required." SOIL TYPE Limitations for Building Construction Code Name Dwellings with Basements Dwellings without Basements 113 Berks Channery Silt Loam 2-7% slope Slight Moderate 1C Berks Channery Silt Loam 7-15% slope Moderate Moderate 3B Blanton Silt Loam 2-7% slope Severe Severe 3C Blanton Silt Loam 7-15% slope Severe Severe 9B Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam 2-7% slo e Severe Severe Potential Impacts: The applicant has proffered that no more than 81 single family homes will be constructed on the parcel. The applicant also proffers $3,316.00 for schools, $591.00 for parks and recreation, and $12.60 for fire and rescue to be paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. This amount matches the fiscal impacts projected by the County's impact model. The construction of 81 single family homes would be expected to generate 810 trips per day on Route 641. The majority of these trips would be expected to head north through the light at the intersection of Routes 641 and 277. The applicant has supplied a detailed traffic impact analysis which the staff has forwarded to VDOT for their comments. We hope to have some response from VDOT in time for the Commission's meeting. In general, the report makes certain assumptions concerning the rate of growth within the Route 277 corridor, the resulting traffic, and the impact that the proposed development would have on the light at the intersection of Routes 277 and 641. The conclusions drawn are that the intersection will become overloaded by the year 2000 with or without the development of the proposed project. Staff feels that it would be appropriate to require the applicant to provide some proportionate Page 4 Woodside Estates Rezoning #006-95 share toward the improvements which will become necessary at least in part as a result of the proposed development. While the development alone will contribute only a small percentage of the traffic utilizing the interchange, the critical volume will be reached sooner with the development than it would without. The problem at this point is that there is no approved plan regarding what the needed improvements will entail. It is therefore, impossible to determine what sort or amount of contribution would be appropriate. This is true not only of this application, but for any future rezoning applications affecting the Route 277 corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 12\06\95 PC MEETING: Approval, contingent upon receiving satisfactory comments from VDOT on the Traffic Impact Analysis. COUNTY of FREDERICK Public Works Department Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director 703/665-5643 Fax: 703/678-0682 November 9, 1995 Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Rezoning 36.46 acres Double Churches Road Woodside Estates Frederick County, Virginia Dear Steve: We understand that you are requesting to rezone 36.46 acres on Route 641 adjacent to Woodside Estates from RA to RP, We further understand that the development of the property will be similar to the Woodside Estates development. Based on our knowledge of the general site conditions, we recommend that stormwater management be implemented during the subdivision design phase of the project. This design should also address improvements to the existing roadside ditches and culverts adjacent to Route 641. A detailed review design submittal. In proposed rezoning. HES:mlh cc: file will be made at the time of the subdivision the interim, we grant our approval for the Sincerely, 41r)t11w � ill -'W Harve?Jr . Strawsnyder, J., .E. Director of Public Works 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 REZONING #006-95 PIN: 86-A-21 Woodside REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff - Zoning Amendment umber P Date Received " 9 -95 BOS Hearing Date I PC Hearing Date 7 -u-95 Thefollowing 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, ,Winchester. 109 Ncr4h NH &'vel 1. Applicant: Name: Gi 1 hPrt W_ Cl-j-'fnrri & As. ci gyres , Inc. Address: 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: 540-667-2139 2. Representative: Name: Stephen M. Gvurisin Telephone: 540--667-2139 3. Owner: Name: Jeni Company Address: P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Telephone: 540-662-7980 12 40 Zoe r� 7 7 The Code of Virizinia 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: Jeni Company P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Virginia 22604 4. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed from RA to RP 5. Current Use of the Property: Vacant Rural Area 6. Adjoining Property: ARCEL ID HL MBER USE ZONING See Attached Sheet 7. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): south of the intersection with Route 277 — Fairfax Pike. g�a2123���. V Q 1 v h Tv Ca- �o 13 �. , �. 4) 8. Parcel Identification: 14 Digit Tax Parcel Number. 86 - ((A)) - 02100 9. Magisterial District: Oneguon 10. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned. Total Area: 36.4589 Acres to be rezoned RP The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted: ih _ 4589 Accts Rezoned from g_ to- RP _ Acres Rezoned from to Acres Rezoned from to Acres Rezoned from to 11. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed: Conveyed from: Joel S r nwP Deed Book Number 818 Pages 1770 12. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses. Single Family Homes 13. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Plat Deed to property Statement verifying taxes paid Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement X X X X X X _Y X 14 14. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederic' County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant: Owner. ` Date: a �<) c• - k n, 15 �' 1, z Woodside Estates Adjoining Property Owners Herbert M. & Patricia Painter 86-A-23 914 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Louis F. & Betty R. Stelzl 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. Bartles 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 �3�'`�`''�? Marvin Ola White 86-A-71 X 41 -3 849 Grim Road Stephens City, VA 22655 �`.= J AMENDMENT ACTION. - PLANNING COMMISSION: Decemher 6, 1995 BOARD OFSUPERVISORS: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP #006-95 of WOODSIDE ESTATES WHEREAS, Rezoning Application #006-95 of Woodside Estates to rezone 36.4589 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to RA (Rural Area), and which is located on the West side of Double Church Road (Route 641) and South of the intersection with Fiarfax Pike (Route 277), designated with PIN 86-A-21, in the Opequon Magisterial District, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on December 6, 1995; and, WHEREAS, td:e Board of Supers isors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on : and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this rezoning to be in the best interest of the puhlic health, safety, welfare, convenience, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 16S of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is aneenr1 1 to revise the Zoning District Map to change 36.4589 acres, designated by PIN 86-A-21, from RP (Residential Performance) to RA (Rural Area) as described by tl:e trpplication and plat submitted, suhject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and property owner. REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 86- ((A))-21 WOODSIDE ESTATES JENI COMPANY Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 et_se2. of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #006-95 for the rezoning of approximately 36.4589 acres from RA Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by, the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors or assigns. General Div 1QVment Plan The development of the subject property and the submission of any Master Development Plan will provide for a street layout connecting with the State Route 641, known as Double Churches Road, and, as shown on the attached Addendum "A" - Street Layout Plan for Woodside Estates. The rezoned property shall not be subdivided into more than eighty-one (81) lots and there shall not be constructed thereon more than eighty-one (81) single family detached houses and no apartments, duplexes or other multi -family buildings shall be constructed on the property. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property deeded from Joel O. and Lucita M. Stowe hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 36.4589 acre tract, lying on the east side of Double Churches Road just South of the intersection of Double Church Road (641) and Fairfax Pike (277) in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County, at the time a building permit is issued for each lot, the sum of three thousand nine hundred and seven dollars ($3,907.00) per approved lot (for Parks and Recreation Department, Schools, and as otherwise directed by the County and shown on attached Addendum `B") plus, twelve dollars and sixty cents ($12.601 approved lot to be paid directly to the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company. �In'- essence, the total sum of three thousand nine hundred nineteen dollars and�sixt- cents ($3,919.60) will be paid at the time a building permit is issued for eacfrlot. , ,r PAGE 2 PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 86- ((A))-21 WOODSIDE ESTATES JENI COMPANY The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTYZAIER STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15m day of November, 1995, by Billy Joe Tisinger of JENI Company. My Commission expires _ ��� _ j /, / O J Notary Public tvej_ ..A ccY open Pro)oct Summory Total Area: 38.4589 Acres Housing Type: Single Family Detached Urban (12,000 of Lots) Total Lots: 79 Late O 12,000 of 2 Lots O 1 Acres Open Space Required 15% Curb & Cutter and Sidewalks Required M J V/ EXISTING j J WOODSIDE J — _ SUBDIVISION _ - L -1 LJ t-�J r^� LJI LJ State Route 841---��-•...�.n -- .._. Gilbert W. Clifford�nd Associates, Inc. Street layout ftSbbmo-e Mm 4—.".h r t. eco riow c.�., m r► FWd.6 9 veyrr M4W Vock"emr, viten._ft'" , ADDENDUM "B" MONETARY IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS BY CATEGORY SCHOOLS $ 3,316.00 PER UNIT PARKS $ 591.00 PER UNIT FIRE & RESCUE $ 12.60 PER UNIT This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this Richard G. Dick Chairman day of , 1995. W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. Jimmie K. Ellington James L. Longerbeam Robert M. Sager A Copy Attest John R Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JENI COMPANY PROPERTY Opequon District October 1995 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. The Winchester Towers 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 e Fax: 703-665-0493 150C Olde Greenwich Drive. • Fredericksburg, Virginia 22 703-898-2115 c i e, TABLE OF CONTENTS L SUMMARY 3 II. INTRODUCTION 3 IIL PLANNING ANALYSIS 4 • Site Suitability • Adjoining Properties • Zoning Review IV. TRAFFIC 5 V. SEWAGE 6 VI. WATER 6 VII. DRAINAGE 6 VIII. SOLID WASTE 7 IX HISTORIC SITES 7 X. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 7 • Education • Emergency Services • Parks and Recreation • Other XI, ENVIRONMENT 8 XII. FISCAL 8 XIM OTHER 8 APPENDIX 9 a a �S 441 '��d_'z 9 StiE IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT Jeni Company Property I. Summary JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to evaluate the above referenced project in light of several major planning issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This document is prepared to rezone a 36.4589 acre property from present Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP) for eighty-one single family detached homes on public sewer and water. The property is suited for Residential Performance (RP) zoning, and is located within the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan designated area as an Urban Development Area (UDA). There is a fiscal development impact. Current zoning, development, and subdivision requirements allow for adequate measures to protect and mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding properties. Adequate measures are provided for in existing development codes to provide for protection of all protected environmental features. II. Introduction The 36 +/- acre property of the Jeni Company is located just south of the intersection of Route 277 and Route 641 on the east side of Route 641. This property adjoins the existing single family development of Woodside. The parcel is identified as tax parcel 86-((A))-21 in the Opequon Magisterial District and is currently zoned Rural Areas (RA). Residential Performance (RP) zoning is planned for the property. The property is located in the Urban Development Area. A preliminary site development evaluation indicates that this site can easily support residential uses of the RP zone, while providing required separation and open space for future uses. Development of this property occurred in 19.93 with the Planning Commission indicating that single family homes with curb, gutter and sidewalks was preferred. The attached proffer statement provides for only single family homes— with the design features requested by the Planning Commission. Site access was also an issue. Site access is limited to one main access point at a location. there <, O site distance is at a maximum level. 3 a "� JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 III. Planning Analysis Site Suitability - The property has no site specific development limiting factors. The property appears well suited for residential Performance (RP) zoning use development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 52 as Berks channery silt loam and Blairton silt loams. Prime Agricultural Soils: The property does contain prime agricultural soils as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Slopes - There are no steep slopes on this property. The topography is ideally suited for industrial type development. Slopes generally range from 2% to 7% with a small portion of the property above 7%. Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property. The property is generally well drained and has no low lying wet areas that wetland vegetation that indicates the presence of a wetland area. Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property. Flood Plain - The property is not located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plain as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map number 510063- 00200B of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Boundary map. Adjoining Properties - Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties. The primary impact concern on adjoining properties is the change of use from open, rural land to a residential subdivision setting. The impacts of the allowed residential uses on the surrounding uses is reduced through existing zoning master planning, distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening and o en space regulations. These along with the required zoning dimensions requirements and the planned 15% open space area limits adjoinung property impacts. M JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOSER 1995 The adjoining property to the north is developed as a single family residential subdivision. To the east is VA Route 641, Double Church_ Road with vacant, rural open land zoned Rural Areas (RA) and currently mixed with rural housing sites. To the south is a single family residence on a large parcel of rural, open undeveloped land; and, to the west is a mix of open rural area and land that is developed as a single family residential subdivision. Zoning Review, - The property is within the Urban Development Area designated for urban type growth and development by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently zoned Rural Areas (RA) allowing by right a variety of uses including five large lot housing units as well as agricultural uses. Agricultural uses are not restricted with setback, parking, screening and buffering restrictions. Under the Residential Performance (RP) zoning regulations a variety of housing types are permitted with limiting performance zoning criteria. The surrounding neighborhoods consist of primarily single family homes. Continuation of the same housing patter[; is encouraged with comprehensive planning policies and zoning standards. The proposed housing type of 12,000 square foot lots is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and regulating planning policies. The impacts of the Residential Performance (RP) uses on the surrounding residential uses is greatly reduced through existing zoning distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations. N. Traffic Impacts Traffic impacts are negligible for this property. Impacts of vehicular access and turning movements on the adjoining properties will be minimal. The traffic signal at the intersection of Routes 641 and 277 currently operates near capacity. The Woodside Estates I and II development will not affect the current levels of services. Please see the attached Traffic Study prepared specifically for this planned development of single family homes-.;,, ^ '�' I.C. + 0, 5 JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 V. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems associated with this project. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future sewer service. Currently this property is served by public sewer service. Sewage service to this site can be provided by Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Sewage will be conveyed to the Wrights Run Treatment Plant. VI. Water Supply Impacts There are no water supply or transmission problems with this property. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future water service. Currently this property is served by public water service. Water service is under the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. A minimum of 8" water service is expected for the type of development. Fire protections measures such as the installation of fire hydrants will be addressed at the site development stage. The installation of fire protection hydrants poses no problems. The installation of fire hydrants on the property will improve the fire protection means of the surrounding properties as well as the enhancing the protection of the property. The fire fighting capabilities of the fire company covering this area will be enhanced with additional fire hydrants. Under current RA zoning this property could be developed without any fire hydrant protection measures. VII. Drainage Facility Impacts Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal or no site drainage impacts. It is recommended that either suitable green space be allowed to reduce run off amounts or that the increased run off would be reduced prior to discharge from the site. In lieu of the above, additional storm water detention calculations should be presented with final design which would show no adverse impacts created by the imposition of this increase storm water on the existing downstream water course. Drainage flows generally toward the Crooked Run drainage area to the south and,,,. east of the property. Predevelopment runoff rates will be main tainedLusing A T recognized storm water management standards.` l .A i JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 VIII. Solid Waste Cost Solid waste impacts are measured in terms of waste generated based upon five pounds per capita per day. Solid waster collection is not provided on a door to door basis, rather solid waste transfer stations are utilized for individual home disposal. Estimated cost for solid waste disposal is approximately $15,000 per year. IX Historic Impacts This project area through past development of adjoining property has no known significance. The area has been significantly developed to the west and north. There are no structures currently located on the area to be rezoned that are of historic significance. A review of the National Register, the Virginia Landmarks Register and The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are no known historic structures on this property. X. Community Facilities Education - This project will generate approximately 60 school age children when the project is completely built out and developed. Total build out time is projected to be within five to seven years. Impact costs are noted on the attached impact model report. Parks and Recreation - This project would result in minimal impact on Parks and Recreational facilities. No additional recreational facilities will be required for the proposed development. Impact costs are noted on the attached impact model report. Emergency Services Cost - There are no additional fire, rescue or sheriff facilities anticipated with the development of the property using RP type uses. Fire protection is available from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. J/ �.- s JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 The planned RP rezoning will have all required site development standards required by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no fire protection problems associated with this property. All hydrants and fire protection measures will be installed when the property is developed. Rescue services are provided by the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Squad with service from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire Company. Sheriff Department services protection will be required. XI. Environmental Impacts There are no known major environmental impacts associated with the rezoning of this property from RA to RP. There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including run off sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. The effects on the down -stream impoundment and stream are minimal and in accordance with local and state regulations. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for securityand, business:_uqe_ These should be- closely controlled during planning stage to minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent residential structures and impacts on the traveling public. XII. Fiscal Impacts Fiscal impacts for the property are determined based upon the fiscal impact model prepared by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development staff. The fiscal impact model results are attached in the appendix of this report. XIV. Other There are no known other impacts. 8 JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 APPENDIX 1. TRAFFIC STUDY 2 FREDERICK COUNTY IMPACT MODEL REPORT 9 gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers Land Planners Surveyors Water Quality Analyses Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive - P. O. Box 781 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 • (540) 898-2115 Winchester Office: 200 North Cameron Street - Winchester, VA 22601 • (540) 667-2139 memorandum To: Review Agencies From: Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. Re: Woodside Estates II Date: November 16, 1995 In support of a rezoning application for Woodside Estates II, the developer has requested that Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. complete a study of the impact of this development on the VA Route 641 (Double Church Road) and VA Route 277 intersection. This study was to estimate existing (1995) and year 2000 volumes and determine what effect an additional 147 single family (Woodside Estates I & II) residential lots would have on the 641/277 intersection at those periods. The study utilized the following documentation to develop its findings. I. O.R. George, Traffic Impact Analysis for Rezoning of Wilson Property, Frederick County, Virginia, 1989. 2. ITE Trip Generation, 4th Edition. 3. VDOT Primary and Secondary Road Traffic Tabulation, Frederick County, 1985-1993. 4. TRB Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 The following methodology was followed: 1. Determine 1989 traffic volumes at intersection from O.R. George Study. 2. Establish volume percentage increases for period 1989 to 1995 and 1995 to 2000. 3. Apply these ratios to the 1989 intersection volumes to estimate 1995 and 2000 intersection volumes without development impacts. 4. Using peak hour volumes determine turn ratios at the intersection. 5. Estimate Woodside Estates I & II trip generation. 6. Apply intersection turn ratios to enter and exit trips to: .estimate intersection impact. r_ ,� • - c1 :. .r J Woodside Estates II Nov. 16, 199 7. Apply the impact volumes to year 1995 and 2000 base volumes. 8. Perform planning analysis per Special Report 209, Section 9. The O.R. George Study provided volumes for each movement in the intersection throughout the peak hour periods. From this data, hourly volumes at 15 minute intervals were calculated, and a peak hour was determined. The traffic count summary is provided in Table #1. The peak hour is from 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. In order to transform the 1989 volumes into relevant data, a factor representing the increase in traffic volume at the intersection caused by surrounding development was required. The major factors affecting traffic in this area are the Village at Sherando and Sherando High School. VDOT performs traffic counts on the primary and secondary roads through the County on a roughly bi-annual basis. The volumes for VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 from 1985 to 1993 were analyzed to arrive at the required percentage increases. Since the last count was taken in 1993, after the High School and much of the Village at Sherando project was opened, this factor was assumed to account for all pertinent development in the general area. A summary of the data and the percentage increase values for VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 are provided on Exhibit #1. The traffic volumes generated during the peak hour were then calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Code 210, Single Family Detached Housing. The ITE manual provides trips generated during the peak hour of the adjacent street as well I as the percentage of trips entering or exiting the development. It was assumed that 175%a of the trips from Woodside would turn toward or arrive from, as is the case during the peak hour, VA Route 277. At the intersection, the trips were further broken down based on the turn volumes in the O.R. George count. The ratio these volumes represented was used to assign the 75% volume, which arrive at Woodside from VA Route 277, to either east bound or west bound Route 277 or south bound Route 641. The additional p.m. peak hour trips which are generated by Woodside, along with the turn ratio and trip generation calculations, are presented on Exhibit #2- 2 Project Nair . ioodside Location: Stephens Ci' Intersectioi,. Va Rte 641Na Rte 277 . Date: Weekday, 1. ;89 Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 on VA Rte 277 Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Lett Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Time Period Time Period 700 7:15 9 5 3 17 22 6 2 30 3 53 5 61 6 55 15 76 184 790 7:15 7:15 7:30 12 7 5 24 27 8 4 39 5 50 8 63 8 62 18 88 214 7:15 7:30 7:30 7:45 7 9 6 22 25 7 3 35 4 48 6 58 7 58 17 82 197 7:30 7:45 7:45 800 5 7 4 16 21 5 2 28 3 55 4 62 6 52 11 69 175 7:45 8:00 800 8:15 8 1 4 13 19 3 3 25 1 52 3 56 1 49 15 65 159 8:00 8:15 8:15 8:30 12 2 2 16 15 1 0 16 1 56 7 64 3 37 7 47 143 8:15 8:30 8:30 8:45 3 3 1 7 11 4 1 16 3 39 3 45 3 40 5 48 116 8:30 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 4 6 2 12 9 3 1 13 5 43 2 50 1 35 8 44 119 8:45 - 9:00 1600 - 16:15 6 12 1 19 13 6 4 23 5 46 3 54 4 54 23 81 177 9:00 - 16:15 16:15 16:30 5 9 7 21 12 9 8 29 10 70 13 93 13 57 22 92 235 16:15 - 16:30 16:30 - 16:45 8 12 4 24 19 15 7 41 14 71 7 92 6 64 22 92 249 16:30 - 16:45 16:45 - 17.00 11 9 3 23 19 9 12 40 7 63 12 82 5 70 10 85 230 16:45 - 17:00 1700 - 17:15 3 7 5 15 18 13 4 35 8 78 11 97 11 77 9 97 244 17:00 - 17:15 17:15 - 17:30 3 10 1 14 14 9 3 26 8 71 10 89 7 81 23 111 240 17:15 - 17:30 17:30 - 17:45 2 11 5 18 18 9 7 34 9 79 29 117 11 61 21 93 262 17:30 - 17:45 17:45 - 18:00 8 16 3 27 21 16 8 45 18 77 23 118 8 67 20 95 285 17:45 - 18:00 ........................................................... tedr............................................................................................................:......................................... Counted totals t tats adjusted to hourly Volumes . ... ................ Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 on VA Rio 277 Total Lett Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Time Period Time Period 600 700 33 28 18 79 95 26 11 132 15 206 23 244 27 227 61 315 770 600 - 7:00 6:15 - 7:15 32 24 19 75 92 23 12 127 13 205 21 239 22 221 61 304 745 6:15 - 7:15 6:30 7:30 32 19 16 67 80 16 8 104 9 211 20 240 17 196 50 263 674 6:30 - 7:30 6:45 7:45 28 13 11 52 66 13 6 85 8 202 17 227 13 178 38 229 593 6:45 - 7:45 7.100 8:00 27 12 9 48 54 11 5 70 10 190 15 215 8 161 35 204 537 700 - 8:00 7:15 8:15 19 11 5 35 35 8 2 45 9 138 12 159 7 112 20 139 378 7:15 - 8:15 7:30 8:30 13 21 4 38 33 13 6 52 13 128 8 149 8 129 36 173 412 7:30 - 8:30 7:45, - 8:45 1 �` 15 27 10 52 34 18 13 65 20 159 18 197 18 146 53 217 531 7:45 - 8:45 8:00 900."' :, , 19 33 12 64 44 30 19 93 29 187 23 239 23 175 67 265 661 8100 - 9:00 ' 1600 -,,,17-.004 30 42 15 87 63 39 31 .133 36 250 35 321 28 245 77 350 891 1600 - 17:00 ' 16:15'-t� 17;15 27) 37 19 83 68 46 31 145 39 282 43 364 35 268 63 366 958 16:15 - 17:15 16:30 17:30; , 25-> 38 13 76 70 46 26 142 37 283 40 360 29 292 64 385 963 16:30 - 17:30 16:45 - 17:45 ' 19:J 37 14 70 69 40 26 135 32 291 62 385 34 289 63 386 976 16:45 - 17:45 17:00 - <. MO 16' 44 14 74 71 47 22 140 43 305 73 421 37 286 73 396 1031 17:00 - 18:00 Peak Hr. , X5116 44 14 74 71 47 22 140 43 305 73 421 37 286 73 396 1031 1700 - 18:00 .c..1`, ` Table 81 gilbert w. clitford and associates O.R. George and Assloclates, Inc. November 1995 Va Rte 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection Turn Movement Volumes 1.00 0:15 Percentage Percentage Increase Increase Year of Count 1985 1987 1991 1993 1995(est) 1987 to 1995 2000(est) at 4% growth per year 1995 to 2000 Va Rte 641 South of Intersection 1591 1736 1793 1538 1750 Na 2129 22% Va Rte 641 North of Intersection 865 no count 865 2618 2750 218% 3346 22% Year of Count 1988 1990 1993 Va Rte 277 4700 4850 11000 11000 134% 13383 22% Use this percentage to Increase O.R. George 1989 Intersection volumes Use this percentage to Increase 1995 estimated Intersection volumes to year 2000 volumes i !`99 iii t 9094wlfNffor�nd associates Nove • 1995 Exhibit K1 Determination of Average Daily Volumes on VA Rte 641 and VA Rte 277 Based on VDOT Traffic Count Data 1985 through 1993 Determination of Turn Rados At Va His 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection From 277 Eastbound 143 53% From 277 Eastbound 171 42% To 277 Eastbound 11 8% To 277 Eastbound 22 16% Volume to 641 South 267 Volume to 641 South 411 Volume to 641 South 132 Volume to 641 South 140 Determination of Increased Traffic Volumes at Va Rua 6411 Va Rte 277 Intersection Due to Woodside Development. Trip Generation by Woodside Developments Proposed Single Family Residential Units - 147 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total ITE Trip Generation Rates 0.20 0.55 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.01 Fourth Ed., Code 210 Trip Production 30 81 111 93 54 148 At Va Rte 641, It is assumed that the trip distribution is as follows: Percentage to/from the north - 75% Percentage to/from the south = 25% Impact of . , i% ; Jriffic From North From 641 Through From 277 Westbound A.M. Peak Hr Vol. 89 35 Movement Ratio 33% 13% Time Period From 641 Through From 277 Westbound P.M. Peak Hr Vol. 140 101 Movement Ratio 34% 24% 171.00=�T'18.001 23: To 641 Through To 277 Westbound A.M. Peak Hr Vol. 26 95 Movement Ratio 20% 72% w. clFNord'and To 641 Through To 277 Westbound P.M. Peak Hr Vol. 47 71 Movement Ratio 34% 51% From 277 Eastbound 143 53% From 277 Eastbound 171 42% To 277 Eastbound 11 8% To 277 Eastbound 22 16% Volume to 641 South 267 Volume to 641 South 411 Volume to 641 South 132 Volume to 641 South 140 Determination of Increased Traffic Volumes at Va Rua 6411 Va Rte 277 Intersection Due to Woodside Development. Trip Generation by Woodside Developments Proposed Single Family Residential Units - 147 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total ITE Trip Generation Rates 0.20 0.55 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.01 Fourth Ed., Code 210 Trip Production 30 81 111 93 54 148 At Va Rte 641, It is assumed that the trip distribution is as follows: Percentage to/from the north - 75% Percentage to/from the south = 25% Impact of . , i% ; Jriffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Development on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 Left{ "__T hru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Time Period 1600 -,. 7A0_ !q 7= 44 12 5 3 J �N 171.00=�T'18.001 23: 21 14 6 17 w. clFNord'and gilbert associates November 1995 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 12 29 Time Period 6:00 7:00 17:00 - 111:00 Exhibit #i2 Va Rte 641/ Va Rte 277 intersection Tum Movement Rados Woodside Estates I & 11 Determination of Trip Generation Woodside Estates II Nov. 16, 1993 The development impact volumes were added to the year 1995 and 2000 base data. The base year peak hour volumes as well as the development affected peak hour volumes are provided on Exhibit #3. In all cases the p.m. peak hour represents the highest intersection volume and those hour volumes are used to evaluate the intersection's performance. �j Special Report 209 provides a planning analysis methodology for signalized intersections as an alternative to the detail signalization design procedure. The planning analysis checks the critical conflicting volumes and provides an estimate of the condition of the intersection. Three conditions are assigned: under, near, or over capacity. The calculation sheets for each of the four conditions are provided in Appendix A. The results are as follows: 1995 (existing) - under capacity 31995 (with development) - near capacity t 2000 (without development) - over capacity 2000 (with development) - over capacity It is the opinion of the writer that Woodside Estates I and II will have a minimal effect on the VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 intersection and will not affect the intersections performance. With continued development along the VA Route 277 corridor, the intersection will begin to provide lower levels of service whether the Woodside Estates II project proceeds or not. If desired, we can provide recommendations for intersection improvements to maintain a near or under capacity condition through the year 2000 for planning use. Any questions regarding the findings, calculations, or references used in this report can be directed to the writer. cioc; �j4Q::> JG^1 :Z_4- 3 7 Determination of Current Va Rte 641/ Ve Rte 277 Intersection Volumes: Peak Hour totals from Chart A adjusted to account for Increase volumes since O.R. George counts In 1989. Increase factor per Table A, for 1988 - 1995 percentage Increase Estimated Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Ex 1995 Vol. on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Time Period 6:00 - 7.00 105 89 57 251 95 26 11 132 35 482 54 571 17:00 - 1800 51 140 45 235 71 47 22 140 101 714 171 985 Impact of Development Time Period 600 - 7:00 1790 - 18100 Traffic From North on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right 105 97 57 259 51 163 45 259 Yr 2000 w/out Traffic From North Development on VA His 641 Lett Thru Right Time Period 6:00 - 7.00 128 110 70 307 17.00 -' 1800 62 175 54 291 Yr 2000 with Traffic From North Development on VA Rte 641 tt*�-.Thru Right Time Period' 6.-00.(, 700 128 't��s 70 315 17. 0 98b0 62/� 199 Vii 4 315 , gilbert and associates' Novembe{, 4w.��1Z92 Traffic From South on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right 139 38 16 193 92 61 28 181 Traffic From South on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right 125 34 14 174 91 60 28 179 Traffic From South on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right 169 46 20 234 112 74 35 220 Traffic From East on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 38 482 54 574 118 714 171 1002 Traffic From East on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 43 587 65 695 126 868 208 1202 Traffic From East on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 46 587 65 698 143 868 208 1220 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right Total 63 531 143 737 87 669 171 927 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 63 531 155 749 87 669 200 956 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 77 646 176 900 105 814 214 1134 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 77 646 188 912 105 814 243 1163 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 1691 6.00 7:00 2287 17:00 18:00 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 1775 6100 7:00 2398 17,00 - 18:00 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 2076 6100 7:00 2807 17.00 - 18:00 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 2159 600 - 7:00 2917 1700 - 18:00 Exhibit #3 VA Rte 277/ VA Rte 641 Intersection A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Progesslve Volumes 1995 through 2000 Appendix A Woodside Estates VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 Intersection Special Report 209 Analysis Worksheets 1995 Existing 1995 with Development 2000 without Development 2000 with Development SIGNALIZED INTERSECTTONS 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: Date: !A! E SY- b.-4 Y S Analyst:- TIIme Period Analyzed: - r\ Project No. W00a7S%t1E City/State:— Pea setc1c Cg;4 r -y VA SB TOTAL N -S STREET WB TOTAL -11 O �d 77 _ E -W STREET EB TOTAL ►� 140 NB TOTAL EB LT = 87 NB LT MAXIMUM WB TH = S g SB TH = 7� SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL C WB LT = I Q I SB IT = —C? OTO 1.200 OR !.� UNDER EB TH = G 9 NB TH = OR 1,?O1 to 1,400 EAR > 1,400 _ = OVER 92 L + a(0 1 = I Z 3 3 STATUS? ill ff A lZ a• L E -W CRITICAL N -S CRITICAL :A :i 9-82 URBAN STREETS CEX j sTi A)G- LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) O ® O O O © © O ® » Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in. Opposing PCE ' T V `T Equiv. Volume Total Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the Volume PCE's (TH+RT) Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes 0-1991.1 200 — 599 = 2.0 ©))� 600 — 799 = 3.0 Ox ® -Q + ® ® _ © ® — ® (3) + — 1.0 800 — 999 = 4.0 a 1,000 — 5.0 APPR. EB LT B LT LT I� � �'� �� 7g G� ��`i 3 L4 0 -71 � 5B LA 2q I 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: -z221 6 q Z Date: W E E1C, L-- 4y 1 I b Analyst:- Time Period Analyzed: _P Project Na WOO S, L'sE City/State: SB TOTAL N -S STREET Z S ci LGA{ 1-71 SJ 71 HiOo Z I Z , r WB TOTAL U7 s6 bG 1�f EB TOTAL �O EB IT — -? WB TH = W B IT = —_1E� OR EB TH = 641 5i7 NB LT = a. SB TH SB IT NB TH V.4 tz+ Z -7 E -W STREET u NB TOTAL MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL 0 TO 1,200UNDEie\ 1,201 to 1,400-, R }' _- 1,400 �`,_ r�� OVER Z E W + STATUS? N F A tZ Q. k I. CRITICAL N -S CRITICAL N, . ; _ - 9_82 URBAN STREETS LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) O O O O O © O O O Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing PCE�r Ver Equiv. Volume Total Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the Volume Pte-; (?'+RT) 1-1 .approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lune Remaining (vph) I I I Lane Lanes 0-199=1.1 200 — 599 = 2.0 600-799=3.0 ®x® raJ+® ®=T ®—® ©+(z 800 — 999 = 4.0 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. EB LT B LT LT Z 0 2C) z i 8 �I 8.� Z�3 3 D Z y S sB 1,1 S I 9-6 ZOg ZGy I Z6L{ 6 LT Ic^ O SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET �/A KI G C -'77/6q L 1-/04, bCvt! r 9-82 URBAN STREETS LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) O O O © O © O O O (9 O Vo LT Total Na of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing PCE Ver Equiv. Volume Total Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the Volume PCFs (TH+RT) Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) I I I I Lane Lanes 0-1991.1 200 -- 599 — 2.0 600 — 799 = 3.0 ®x ® ® + ® ® _ O T — ® ® + ® — I.0 800 — 999 — 4.0 y 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. EB LT B LT LT 2 70 H Lf `3�1 SB ���y �J 3- LT 11 ` ,�: SIGNALIZED INTTIUELMONS PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET 9-81 LL. -'r 'L,�eJc�O�lwter.T; Intersection: Z?? !; Date: W El=K t\.4 Y Z O d p Analyst: Time Period Analyzed: N _... Project No. W00ZZ%k'1City/State: AjI-y v� erc oy R I SB TOTAL N -S STREET J Sq Tog 1 ZZo - (y WB TOTAL Gz-tIZ O 6o V,+ ZrE 2 -7 7 E -W STREET EB TOTAL 2yS ZZo S S NB TOTAL EB IT a (OS' NB LT a 60 MAXIMUM WB TH = 1G7 SB TH = Z I SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY t I $ t VOLUMES LEVEL W3 LT = 1471 _ SB IT = �? _ OR 0 TO 1,200 - --UNDER r y OR "��L EB TH = NB TH S_� 1,201 to 1,400 NE '` \ 1 �7 ail > 1,400OV D V Et E -W CRITICAL N -S CRITICAL STATUS? r �f - J 9-82 URBAN STREETS LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) T O ® © O © O O O 9 Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in. Opposing PCE V Equiv. Volume Total Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the Volume �T �T PCE's (TH+RT) Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) I Lane Lanes 0-199=1.1 200 — 599 = 2.0 600-799=3.0 ®x© ®+® ®=® (T—® ®+® — 1.0 800 — 999 = 4.0 z 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. EB LT B LT LT Zs3 Z.o t�Z ZZy 101 333 3 i p 1 1 Z.- 95 SB -7y (z 2-5--5 3 Z 1 1 LT 1 �S e /,J \f OCT --7-9"3 FRI 9:22 F DICK CO CT C OMMONIS 171 i7395cZ2 P.01 ___.___._._--_--------------------------------------------- OUTPUT MODULE �_ Net M ___ _ Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital impact Capital Net 1m�a�t Fire Department $143 Rescue ^apartment $254 $1,468 SO Elementary Schools $105,298 Middle Schools Mlgh Schools $32,121 $143,068 $34,023 $246,463 Parks and Recreation $45.762 S207 TOTAL $326,646 $0 $37,514 $289,132 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not Covered by County $932.50 Contributions _------------------------_____ _----- -------------- ------- --------------- ----------------- _- _----- -- NOTES; MODEL RUN -DATE 10/27/95 JENI CO. REZONING: ASSUMES 74 SFD ON 36 ACRES REZONED RA TO RP. tQ ti `�, �- C4 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director RE: Draft 1996 Comprehensive Policy Plan DATE: November 28, 1995 The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee and Staffhave completed the bulk of this year's update of the Plan. 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 Round Hill Land Use Plan. There are a couple additional items yet to be completed. There are updates needed to the Sewer and Water Map as well as the Eastern Road Plan Map, these are in progress. The update to the Eastern Road Plan consists of eliminating a north -south and an east -west collector road that would split the Third Winchester Battlefield site and a couple of short, minor collectors that fed into the major collectors. We also plan to add some sort of graphics to the first page of each chapter to better distinguish the beginning of each. Enclosed is the recommended update. We have copied only those pages with significant changes for y9ur review. Text that is to be deleted is shown with a strike through it and text to be added is shaded: Each chapter needs to be viewed separately with regard to pages numbers in order to avoid confusion. Page numbers at this point are unreliable since text that is to be deleted still appears. Please let me know if there are any questions. KCT/dc Attachments t07 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 History There was a tremendous building boom in the county during the period of 1880-1900. In addition to new construction, older structures were often enlarged and "updated" using modern building techniques and styles. This growth occurred in both rural areas and in small communities that had previously developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. New communities were also formed as a consequence of newer, more advanced transportation systems including the automobile and the railroad. Among the communities that experienced growth during this period were Meadow Mills, Hayfield, Gore, Mountain Falls, Mount Williams, Gravel Springs, Gainesboro, Albin, Brucetown, White Hall and Armel. Industrial activity also slowly resumed after the Civil War. According to one source, by 1890, Frederick County had 37 mills, eight woolen factories and mills, a steam elevator, two iron foundries, four glove factories, a boot and shoe factory, ten broom factories, four tanneries, a large paper mill, three newspapers, a book bindery, eight cigar factories, three marble yards, and two furniture factories. In the early twentieth century, there was rapid industrial growth in Frederick County. There was a phenomenal rise in apple production, with apples replacing wheat as the primary cash crop. Many new facilities were developed relating to apple production and processing. Later in the twentieth century, the local economy had diversified to include a range of different industrial activities. Activities continue to be based on the accessibility of the area and on north -south travel along the route that was once the Great Wagon Road and is now Route 11 and Interstate 81. Historic Preservation There are quite a few historic sites in Frederick County. The following sites are listed on both the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places: Belle Grove and Cedar Creek Battlefield Hopewell Friends Meeting House Monte Vista County Poor House Springdale House and Mill Complex Willa Cather Birthplace Willow Shade Newtown/Stephensburg District Sunrise St. Thomas Episcopal Church (Middletown) In addition to these, there are approximately 50 sites in the County that have been preliminarily reviewed by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and deemed probably eligible for inclusion on the State and National Registers. • • • • .� r • I M fe r • NJ 16 i va v it oil' •• •it• 1995 Frederick County 7 Comprehensive Plan History i battaeitelds,of greatattonal importare axE 1c�cas edIn Frederick County ane Winchester: Battlefields: First and Second Battles of Winchester First and Second Battles of Kernstown Stephenson's Depot Fortifications/Entrenchments.- Star ortifications/Entrenchments: Star Fort Parkins Mill Battery Nineteenth Corps Line Hilandale Earthworks/1864-65 Winter Line Third Battle of Winchester Cedar Creek Rutherford's Farm Fort Collier Carysbrook Redoubt Zig-Zag Trenches 1995 Frederick County 8 Comprehensive Plan History $cxtt�fzed r acx and nj y ]ble ve} icular pedestrian 'and .I'Ibf-wc rayeI tQ oordtnate the baXtiefteld ffprt < v th effOrts ro prot ea grad :preserve natural, Visual atrc _.. . r v rrzritnerital resources.. ..._....... __ _ ............. 1995 Frederick Countv 9 Comprehensive Plan History TI Plan: describes stz'ate Fes tt� chte�e;t q goals n. J d' 1995 Frederick County 10 Comprehensive Plan History . ... . _ .. . ................._ _.. _ _... _. - .... _...... ............ ...... _. BattlefieId Action Pro gram�`umma ACTIo.N 1.995 1996 1997 1998 1999 l stablish "Battlefield UrganlzatiAppif, C Complete nm farm acq .;St tom Acquire Third Winchester ley. areas kest?urce plan f©r Ternsto�vrt resource plan for Third Winchester Resource pian for Star Fort Q Battlefield special event' a Resource plan for Cedar Creek Ynterpre.tativve tour plan. Q Implement Iernstown plan Q Develop Interpretative center Q Additional.acluisiton at Cedar ..... reek ........... Travel:'route>SlgnS _ .. Implement Star Fart pian Implement Cedar Creek lan �I 1995 Frederick Countv 1 1 Comprehensive Plan History The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County, a comprehensive survey of all historic structures and sites in the County, was completed in 1992. It documents over 1800 properties and concludes that many are historically significant. Archaeological sites in the County have also been inventoried in recent studies. Methods to protect, enhance and preserve the especially significant sites are being pursued. . . • .. .. e 199J I•redenck County 12 Comprehensive Plan History A program for designation of historic properties was adopted in 1992 and is being administered by the Histo r c Resources Advisory Board. The HRAB is also pursuing an educational program to raise the public awareness about the County's historic resources, which includes a presentation on the Rural Landmarks Survey as a part of the County Schools' history curriculum. 1995 Frederick County 14 Comprehensive Plan ^.. History Rol I off I IN 14 Rjr�1D,[MiwL%j 1M•a�ni.r.r ., .■ ■ •M K III I M 111-10voingif it twoulti• • • • . MI. . ■ ., • . . • • • • r . ■ • •p • • r • . NJ lo.• • i • . • 0 •nrr� ■ • La�.n_a�•�,��r_irk►nIL:!fM 1M•a�ni.r.r ., .■ ■ •M K III I M 111-10voingif it twoulti• • • • . MI. " .r •nrr� ■ • La�.n_a�•�,��r_irk►nIL:!fM 1M•a�ni.r.r r.nt•r..Max.1I y' pump ■ . • • r • • " .r • • r . ■ • •p FqWMM ■ • ■ I I I FVAr-, ■ memo • 1 M 041 tlf OF• •f 1 • • • . r • • " • it .. • •• • •• ■ •■ • • • • •, 1995 Frederick County 15 Comprehensive Plan History . twWALMR111t / . ll ERIJO . . .- .- 91419111 t0=112 1- . In addition to individual properties and battlefield sites, several areas of the County have been identified as having potential for historic districts. Any development proposal in these areas will need to address the historical significance of the site involved. Zoning or other regulatory methods can be used to help protect important historical sites. Methods are preferred which allow the property owner to decide whether to participate. In addition, incentives allowed by law for the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, or restoration of historic structures should be considered. Care should be taken in the design and provision of streets and utilities in historic areas to maintain the historical integrity and character of historic areas. The protection of historic areas should be carefully considered in establishing new roads. Land use patterns should be planned that are harmonious with the historic environment. Historic preservation can play an important role in economic development. Tourism is an important local industry. The possibility of improving the attractiveness of the area to tourists should be considered in a systematic manner. The protection of historic resources will play an important role in this effort. 1995 Frederick County 16 Comprehensive Plan History Historic Preservation Policy A number of historic preservation issues have been identified, including the following: The treed to develop methods to protect historic resources. The need to protect and promote the economic and cultural importance of historic resources. GOAL - To protect the historic resources in Frederick County. Strategy - Maintain the inventory of historic sites and potential districts and promote the official designation of significant resources in the County. Strategy 2 - Study and adopt methods to preserve historic resources. Strategy 3 - Incorporate historic resources in efforts to promote tourism. Strategy 4 - Develop a comprehensive approach to historic preservation which will result in a system of sites and battlefields dedicated or protected in a coordinated fashion. Implementation Methods: 1. Use the Rural Landmarks Survey as a source for determining properties and districts that would qualify for official recognition. Provide positive publicity and education about the recognized sites. Identify those which may be eligible for the State and National register and assist in the preparation and submission of nominations. 2. Develop a method for notifying owners of abandoned historic property of the significance of their property and urge them to maintain it. 3. Develop a mapping system, coordinated with other mapped property information, to assist in determining whether development proposals will impact historic resources. 1995 Frederick County 18 Comprehensive Plan History 4. Have the Historic Resources Advisory Board review development proposals which potentially impact significant historic resources. Provide the HP.AB's information and recommendations to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 5. 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. 6. Develop requirements and methods for dedication of land and historic districts for significant developments affecting historic resources. Require that open space dedications for developments in battlefield areas be used to create battlefield parks. 7. Administer the standards for the creation and regulation 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. 8. 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 reenactments, tours, exhibits, and other activities. Develop ways to publicize sites and routes of interest that will not adversely impact private property owners. 9. Present educational programs, such as slide presentations and lectures, to promote historic preservation. 1995 Frederick County 19 Comprehensive Plan Population and Housing Growth in Housing The number of permits issued for the construction of new homes has varied dramatically, following the rise and fall of the national housing market. The numbers of permits issued for new houses each year rose steadily in the early 1970's, but fluctuated in the middle 1970's. Starting from 1977, a steady decline in pen -nits 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. Bowever, 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 st l tiv n 1984 r ePvart rililllltA/� Figure 2 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 continuing 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. 1995 Frederick County 18 CompreheniivePlan Population and Housing 1 able 5: nousenows and Average riousenoid ,size, r rederick uoun (196U -199U Average Household Year. Population Households --Size 1960 21,941 6,045 3.63 1970 24,107 8,570 2.81 1980 34,150 11,467 2.98 1990 45,723 16,470 2.78 Source: U.S. Bureau, Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Projections The Frederick County Department of Planning and Development has produced alternate low, medium, and high population projections. The low projections come from the Virginia Employment Commission and are cohort component projections. The moderate projections use the average amount of population increase that occurred each year between 1980 and 1993. The high projections use the average annual percent rate of increase between 1990 and 1993. These projections suggest that the population of Frederick County will fall somewhere between 55,800 and 60,400 by the year 2000. Table 6: Population Projections for Frederick Population'Projections> 1990 1993 1995 2000 2005 2010 Low 51,449 55,823 60,351 64,878 45,723 49,700 Medium 52,092 58,073 64,054 70,035 High 52,542 60,377 69,381 79,728 Based on rates of construction occurring in the late 1980's, it might be expected that population growth will be closer to the high projections than to the low projections. It is possible to update the information on growth trends and the projections each year. In this way, we can better understand how the County is growing and can monitor changes in trends on a continuous basis. 1995 Frederick County 21 Comprelu smvePlan Pvo ulation and Housing Figure 3 80,000 z 60,000 0 '4 40,000 a ate. 20,000 0 —t- 1990 Population Projections Frederick County 1995 2000 2005 YEAR Low -- — Medium ....... - - - High 20101 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. .,x,.,,44. ,,re«ei fun %-.uuiav uepurunent q/ rianning ana ueveeopment 1995 Frederick County 22 Compm.hensivePlan Economy Because of its strategic location in relation to other areas, the Frederick County -Winchester area has been a center of commerce and transportation since the eighteenth century. In the County, major roads traveling west from the Washington metropolitan area meet major roads traveling north and south in the Shenandoah Valley. Economic growth continues in the County as a result of these advantages. Economic growth is one of the forces that drives other types of growth in any community. In order to plan for growth and development in Frederick County, it is important to examine economic trends. It is particularly important to coordinate economic development policy with other planning policies. The City of Winchester and Frederick County together comprise a single, unified economic area. Economic growth in the City of Winchester certainly has an effect on growth in the County. Therefore, the City and County have developed a cooperative approach to economic development. 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%. Unemployment rates, and the percentage of the labor force which are unemployed, have fluctuated in Frederick County and Winchester in response to economic trends that have occurred nationwide. During the 1970's and 1980's, average annual unemployment rates for the local area were generally above the state and national averages. During the peak recessionary year of 1982, the unemployment rates in the area reached a high of 11.7%, above the national average of 9.7%. However, since 1983, average annual unemployment rates have generally fallen below the national average. In 1992, the average unemployment rate did rise to 7.8% which was above the national average of 7.4% but has _. _............ .........I 1995 Frederick Countv 27 Comprehensive Plan _ Economy Conclusions Frederick County continues its recovery from two national recessionary periods in the early 1980's and 1990's. However, from 1980 to 1990, Frederick County has significantly increased its share of manufacturing jobs in the Lord Fairfax Planning District. This increase has caused both total employment and the percentage of workforce engaged in manufacturing to rise. While the number of jobs in manufacturing and the percentage of workforce engaged has fallen dramatically throughout Virginia and the United States, Frederick County, along with neighboring regions to its north, have experienced a stable manufacturing base. This trend reflects one of Winchester and Frederick County's economic strengths. The following are some general conclusions concerning economic trends in Frederick County and Winchester: * Reflecting national economic trends, the greatest increase in jobs locally has been in services and trade. * The number of employed people living locally has increased at a more rapid rate than the population as a whole. * Between 1980 and 1985, there was $70 million of non-residential construction in Frederick County and Winchester. There was $23 million of industrial constriction, mostly in Frederick County, and $19 million of commercial construction, mostly in Winchester. From 1986 to 1992, there was $190 million of non-residential construction in Frederick County and Winchester. There was $51 million of industrial construction, mostly in Frederick County, and $44 million of commercial construction. Between 1975 and f985, employment in the . i - .01 in FLedeiick eounty and Winchester increased at an average rate of about . Between 1985 and 1993, employment in the private sector in Frederick County and Winchester increased at an average rate of 3.8%. Local retail sales and travel -related tourist expenditures have grown at a rapid rate. Since I990, Winchester and Frederick County have consistently increased the share of Virginia 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. 1995 Frederica: County 31 Comprehensive Plan Economy PrO 1985 tQ>`t91 t rival :see r emt lo.riie�l in red zxck County: nd'U C t Es r .inereas c# * While Per Capita Income (PCI) has dropped dramatically in other regions, the PCI in Winchester -Frederick County rose from $17,049 in 1991 to $18,205 in 1992. 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 9: Employment Trends Within Private Sector (Frederick County) SECTOR 1983 1.985 1987.:.' T989 1991:1993 Frederick County Total 7,282 7,962 9,163 11,571 10,060 11,515 Agricultural Services 397 404 450 387 323 473 Mining 124 122 144 172 157 148 Contract Construction 734 1,013 1,262 1,447 1,122 1,126 Manufacturing 2,789 2,473 2,715 3,607 2,908 4,127 Transportation and Utilities 1 733 727 746 841 944 754 Wholesale Trade 538 848 1,034 1,356 937 857 Retail Trade 1,115 1,168 1,411 1,911 1,869 1,867 Finance, Insurance,Rea I Estate 46 150 163 434 367 418 Services 806 1 1,042 1 1,237 1 1,416 1 1,433 1,745 Nonclassifiahle ::i:: I I I; I I I I I Jounce: Virginia kmpiovment Commission; Frederick County Department of Plamung aiui Development 1995 Frederick County 32 Comprehensive Plan 1995 Frederick County 70 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1995 Frederick Countv 71 Comprehensive Plan Irrnurara izeQera 1995 Frederick County 72 Comprehensive Plan hrsf ................... Land Use ..................... ...................... rill ..................... ..................... ...................... ...................... sell ....................... ....................... ....................... 1995 Frederick County 73 Comprehensive Plan Land Use .M.Ap. ........... 1995 Frederick County 74 Comprehensive Plan Land Use I'nIrcr trughtre .............. ............. #00* 1995 Frederick County 75 Comprehensive Plan Issues: There is a need to determine to what extent rural community centers will be the primary location of commercial and service uses in the rural areas. The extent to which additional commercial and residential development should be allowed in each rural community center needs to be determined. What density of housing development should be allowed in each center? A policy governing the provision of public services to rural community centers needs to be established 1995 Frederick County 76 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Table 14: Comparative Facts and Figures of Rural Community Centers Clearbrook, CATEGORY Gainesborq Round Hill Gore Stephenson, Armel Brucetown HOUSING Single Family 122 266 101 346 158 Mobile Homes 13 14 23 229 26 Total 135 280 1 124 1 575 184 LOT SIZE Average 13 2.75 7.5 4 6.25 Residential 1 2.5 1 1.25 1 2.25 1 1.25 1 2 POPULATION 466 966 427 1,948 635 LAND USE Residential 288 338 220 545 354 Commercial 5 36 8 52 3 Mixed 5 46 4 80 7 Industrial 30 19 12 411 0 Public/Semi-Public 63 22 9 98 6 Agriculture/ Open 381 352 386 1,414 608 Vacant/Wooded 808 284 549 217 473 Total 1,580 1,097 1,188 2,817 1,451 Source: Frederick County Department ojPlanning and Development 1995 Frederick County 77 Comprehensive Plan Rural Areas In terms of land area, Frederick County, Virginia is predominantly rural in character. Within the County, rural areas can be defined as all areas outside of the designated Urban Development Area In the County, the primary land uses in rural areas are agriculture and forests. The primary growth pattern consisting of widely scattered, large lot residential development. Frederick County contains 266,000 acres of land. Of this acreage, approximately 23,000 is contained within the bounds of the Urban Development Area. The remaining 243,000 acres is in the rural areas. Roughly 23 0, 000 acres lie west of Interstate 81 and are intended to remain rural into the indefinite future. Many residents of Frederick County are attracted to the natural beauty and special lifestyle found in rural portions of the County. Excessive or inappropriate development in these areas can reduce their value and attractiveness. At the same time, the rural areas play an important role in the County's economy through the income generated by agriculture. Fruit production was the largest single category of agricultural production, in terms of dollar value, in the County in 1 Over one-half of the market value of agricultural production in recent years has been fruit production. Most of the rest of the agricultural production involved livestock. .::..:::... In , according to the United States Agricultural Census, there were -1�i J. acres :.; $ of farmland m Frederick County. Tb� [s does acresarrhfnr � 1gg t df IWI6 acres ". The estimates of farmland acreage show that the total amount of farmland decreased steadily and significantly between 1950 and the early 1970's. However, between 1974 and 1982, the acreage of farmland remained relatively constant at about 120,000 acres. The estimated farmland acreage then fell between 1982 and 1987. Most of the reduction in farmland acreage that occurred in the 1950's and 1960's was probably due to the selling or development of marginal land or forestland for purposes other than farming. 1995 Frederick County 78 Comprehensive Plan re 9 Land Use FARMLAND ACREAGE BY TYPE Frederick County 1950 1969 1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 Year p Other Land Other Cropland m Pasture Source: U.S. Census Bureau ®Orchard Census of Agriculture p co n Most of the prime agricultural soils in Frederick County, as defined and mapped by the United States Soil Conservation Service, are located in the limestone belt running north -south throughout the County east of Little North Mountain and west of Interstate 81. Most of the orchards and other cropland in the County are located in this area, although some are located in other areas. There are a number of support activities in the County that are particularly important to the local agricultural economy. There are at least seven permanent farm markets that sell local produce. There are at least seven farm implement and supply dealers in the Winchester -Frederick County area and 1995 Frederick County 79 Comprehensive Plan at least seven fruit packing operations. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, there were 130,947 acres of forest land in Frederick County in 1986. This figure-hasdropped to 126,000 acres in 1988, and .5 1 , , tcrcla� was 124x624 acres in 1�2. Forestland is the largest single land use in the County. The majority of this forest land is private, non -industrial forest land and is located west of Little North Mountain. These forests provide a major contribution to maintaining the rural character of the County. In addition, they protect watersheds of our streams, provide wildlife habitat, and affect our climate. Forestry makes a major contribution to the local economy. Our forestland helps support almost 20 forest related industries in the County which employ approximately 750 full time workers. In 1977, the General Assembly passed the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. The purpose of this act is to conserve and protect agricultural land and to encourage its development for the production of agricultural and forestal products. Under this act, any landowner may apply to the County to have their land included in an Agricultural and Forestal District. Such districts are voluntary for landowners, but must be approved by the County. The primary statutory benefit of the Agricultural district is that it limits the ability of local governments and state agencies to enact laws or regulations, use eminent domain or take other actions which would interfere with the use of the land in the district for agricultural or forestal purposes. Under the virtrinia eocietide: cif Vi tnia, local governments may choose to restrict non-agricultural development in the agricultural district. 1M in a band of ptime agiicaltatai soils iying to tile east 0'X .- _.-mrMiM additional acreage witlin this band of prime fMnland t11J--VU-H-*gIht -a I S 0 b- e included hrthe Agricuitt District. 1995 Frederick County 80 Comprehensive Plan Land Use A variety of uses are currently allowed in rural areas in the County. Care should be taken to avoid potential conflicts between these various uses. Other localities have found that certain levels of residential uses conflict with agricultural uses. New residents of rural areas sometimes find agricultural and forestry activities objectionable. Excessive residential development can reduce the efficiency of agriculture. Development activities, involving non-agricultural land uses, are occurring on a continuous basis in the rural areas in Frederick County. Most of this development activity is in the form of new residences. An estimated 1,500 new lots, ten acres in size and smaller, have been created in the rural portions of Frederick County since 1982. In addition, there are a significant number of these smaller lots that were created before 1983. It is probably safe to estimate that more than 2,000 new homes have been constructed in the rural portions of the County since 1982. While the rural areas of the county remain relatively undeveloped, there is a significant amount of land which has been subdivided but is not yet built on. The number of small lots being created in the rural areas has had increased each year since 1986 to 19;89 There were 70 lots under 20 acres in size created in 1986. In 1989 there were 292 lots created m the rural areas and of these 292 lots 270 were under 20 acres in size. Since 1 0_.thefrrsencu of r�evv.u�lxrh�vzied lots has iecr�aceci 1995 Frederick County 81 Comprehensive Plan Figure 10 NEW LOTS CREATED UNDER 20 ACRES By Year, In Frederick County Lots 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 — 0 83 $4 $5 A 86 _ 87 88 $9 30 A 91 92 g3 Year Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Note: This information is based on the total number of lots involved in a land division. Previous RA (Rural Area) regulations made it very easy for new lots to be created in the rural areas, with no consideration of impacts to surrounding land uses. The result has been scattered rural development. Many lots have been created for the purpose of speculation without any thought to design or potential impacts. Conflicts have arisen between existing uses and those newly established. The conversion of agricultural and forestal land to non-agricultural uses is obviously affected by conditions in the national agricultural economy and by the profitability of farming. The County is fortunate at the present time to have a strong and diversified agricultural base. Additional attempts to further diversify agricultural activities might further strengthen the local agricultural economy. The Virginia Code (Title 15. 1, Chapter 11) states that Planning Commissions should study the preservation of agricultural and forestal land in preparing the Comprehensive Plan. It also states that zoning ordinances should be designed to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands. To be effective, attempts to preserve valuable farmland should be consistent with an ongoing comprehensive planning process. There are indirect costs associated with scattered rural development. As new residents move into the rural areas, there is an increased demand for urban services --traffic increases on roads which were 1995 Frederick County 82 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, nth e end teurreptl 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) School provides special education services and Dowell J. Howard provides vocational services fQr'l sphr�dl stuclent�. end adt�s . N Relim .. .. • amww • .. • • .. 6W.. '� .• ..r ••.. •. Middle school enrollment is at 80% of capacity. James Wood High School's enrollment is 110% 1995 Frederick County 1 13 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services bd of capacity and Sherando High School's enrollment is 96% ............ 10 of capacity. Six modular units are being utilized at James Wood High School to help alleviate overcrowding. —A need IfiTr- Several schools are experiencing overcrowding due to increased enrollment and changes in the educational program. To combat this problem, seven schools are utilizing a total of 29 modular units. 114 Figure 13 Community Facilities and Services PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Frederick County Students =' 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 1111111, 1111111 IN 2,000f7 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 The percentage of the estimated County population enrolled in public schools has declined from 30.6% in 1970 to 19.0% in 1992. This trend will likely continue over the long term. Growth in school enrollment in the future will be the result of new development, rather thanncl-eses m Birt nate deniogtaphic trends. The current total enrollment to capacity ratio is 8-9%9. 2% of capacity. Enrollment meets or exceeds 90% of capacity at six W schools. 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. 116 Community Facilities and Services Table 16: School Capacity and Enrollment for Frederick Count 1995-1996 % of SCHOOLS Grade Rated Capacity Practical 1994-1995 Practical Level Capacity Enrollment. ` Capacity Apple Pie Ride K-5 865 675 594 88% Armel K-5 635 585 609 104% Bass Hoover K-5 865 735 709 96% Gainesboro K-5 295 260 138 53% Indian Hollow K-5 635 585 583 100% Middletown K-5 635 585 584 100% Robinson K-5 370 298 274 92% Senseny Road K-5 739 699 656 94% Stonewall K-5 525 527 432 82% ota'Idemex�try K;.. 5,4 4:9 49 9a� Robert E. Aylor 6-8 1,082 965 748 78% Middle School Frederick County 6-8 924 845 669 79% Middle School James Wood Middle 6-8 1,328 1,125 939 83% . tal;Mrod:: x.: :.... -:.: 19;' 2iJ6 James Wood High 9-12 1,350 1,250 1,408 113% Sherando High 9-12 1,350 1,250 1,271 102% Fatal High School 9 12 2,700,50 2,679 10°2a NREP Ages 2- 56 56 27 48% 21 1 11,G54 is 0,440' . 9,23 :; ........9.2 Source: Frederick County School Boarrl 1995 Frederick County 117 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 fourteen 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. A "' full-time Fire Marshals performs 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 neweonsctilidated;`communication center fax fire, rescue;: and police SCt't�:Si ..................... 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. An immediate need exists for the development of a fireu rescue station in the Route 50 East - Route 522 South Corridor. 118 Community Facilities and Services Airport The Winchester Regional Airport is a 338 -acre, 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 55 tiedown 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 constuction of a runway extension, new General Aviation Terminal Building, T -hangar and corporate hangars, above ground fuel storage facility, and safety areas at each end of the runway. Collaborating with Frederick County and theVirginia 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 $8.2 million dollars has been invested in Airport capital improvements, equipment, and promotions through Federal, State, and local funding. In addition, a project to relocate a taxiway is in progress in order to comply with federal design standards. Upon completion, a Precision Instrument Approach will be established which will provide better all weather access to the Airport. This will require aquisition of additional land and avigation easements. Future developments include a new business operations building, t -hangars, corporate hangars, as well as security and perimeter fencing. It will also be necessary to aquire land to include an area for a Frederick County satellite fire station. Through the support of the member jurisdictions, the Winchester Regional Airport will continue to evolve in a modern first class air transportation facility which will benefit and attract new industries and commercial business to the area. Handley Library Library service is provided to Frederick County through the Handley Regional Library headquartered in Winchester, which is serves Winchester, Frederick County, and Clarke County. As of Julp X34 Septemher,199, there were more than -168-H6 1$;60 registered library 1995 Frederick Count- 119 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services The library refit na'I cyst t supports education, preschool through post -secondary, by providing :. aS5tanc'CI research materials for projects and papers, and by being open nights, Saturdays, St�tl 40 x 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 its f's space limitations, Handley Libraty 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 and locate as well as find parking near the library. Based upon a library consultant's study of the community's library rte" ds through the ar 2041x the :. Handley 944W Library Boardand the library staff have proposed b aiidiz ig form, ted:a. mli4. art dqulr�pment pian Z Vis# steep that jxlan is tc bu�It a 366@ 34XQ square -foot Frederick County Library in the Fredericktowne area with construction to start in 1999. fn the interim; --the County Offices The County recently purchased the 32,000 square foot Courthouse Associates building on north Kent Street, next to the Joint Judicial Center, Those County departments that were housed in the main 9 Court Square building have already relocated to this building. As the remaining tentants vacate, addditional departments will relocate to the Court House Associates building. The County still intends to construct a 68,000 square foot building near the Courthouse Associates building with bond funds. Reconfiguration of office space and locations will clone tlti7rie be at the time that a bid is let Contrabt is aided to design and build this the new building. 120 Community Facilities and Services Refuse Collection, Landfill, and Recycling Refuse collection service is provided by Frederick County at 15 refuse collection stations. Eight of these stations consist of hydraulic compactor machines with separable roll -off containers; the other half *e O" 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 origtitilly estimated to have adequate capacity for 25 years commencing in October of 1993. The:<dev lonmerti of a:-cr�n rri' t�nri IP Hext�„�t°�Tt �i,�,,:r�. a.�,a:.A..i r_.�r..ti <: co thence m 1 .S ' The County should reevaluate tonnage, revenue, and expenditure trends every year and set fees accordingly. landfill fbi future expanaivir 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. 1995 Frederick County 121 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services provides sewage treatment for Winchester. The Parkins Mill plant serves the upper Opequon Creek drainage area and portions of the Wrights Run drainage area. The Stephens Run Plant serves a small portion of the Stephens Run drainage area. 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 the Opequon Plant through the year 2005. At an 8% growth rate, capacity is projected to be sufficient through the year 2002 An :increase u The Stephens Run and Parkins Mills Plants serve an interconnectional system of sewer lines in the Stephens Run, Wrights Run, and Upper Opequon drainage areas. The combined rated capacity of these plants is 750,000 gallons per day. The current average daily flow of these plants is 750,000 gallons per day. The Sanitation Authority is currently constructing an expansion of the Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is expected to be completed in late 1995. At this time the capacity of plant will be 2.0 MGD. This expansion will eliminate the Stephens Run Wastewater Treatment Plant and the wastewater treatment plant serving the Town of Stephens City. Flow from those plants will be diverted to the Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant. Upon completion of the expansion, the Authority projects to have about 1.0 mgd of treatment capacity available for growth. There are substantial areas of land available for development within the existing sewer service areas. Figure 14 1995 Frederick County 123 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services Figure 15 Opequon Treatment Plant; Sewer Flows Versus Capacity 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. 1995 Frederick County 125 Comprehensive flan Community Facilities and Services Figure 16 Parkins Mill Treatment Plant; Flow Versus Capacity 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 don't 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 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. 126 Community Facilities and Services The County's procedures for reviewing and adopting the CIF need to he improved. The CTP 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 needs to 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.,, f thea; are Qthet` _. _ . . . impacts which arenot addressed or tf the request does not conform tothis plan,: A similar method should be developed for determining the impacts of proposed developments on transportation systems and other public facilities. Issues: 1995 Frederick County 127 Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities and Services 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 aneed to continue supportingfrre 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 apart 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 usage 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 Seiver Agreements. Together with the County and the City, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority should carefully plait 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 Countyplans. Water and server service should be provided to service areas in the urban development areas through an orderly process following the Facilities Planning Agreement and using the Capital Improvements Platt. 128 Community Facilities and Services Community Facility and Service Policy GOAL - Appropriate services and facilities shall be provided to serve planned land uses and development. GOAL - Facilities and services should be carefully planned to meet projected needs. Strategy 1 - Plan sufficient school capacity to meet projected enrollment trends and to meet appropriate facility standards. Strategy 22 - 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. Sbatea-v 4 - Develop and implement plans fo, expand— Straw - 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. Strategy 6 - Carefully monitor sewer and water use and develop up-to-date improvement plans for sewer and water facilities. Strategy, 7 - 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. Strategy 8 - Use the Capital Improvements Plan to carefully plan community facilities and to coordinate facilities planning with land use plans. Strategy 9 - Require that the impacts of new developments on facilities be described and require that the impacts are addressed through proffers and other means. 130 Community Facilities and Services 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 development in the various service areas.. 3. Develop plans for new emergency service facilities. ruDl�l�lw.•I1�1\��l�i�L�f.1l=1�rl�l���P.yly l�ld��lf�li\�1��l�Y.t�1�1�1�1�1C�1����l�ln��, ��1��1�1�1rt�ln��l�l. 6. Continue to convert dumpster sites to compactor sites. Monitor usage. Plan for new refuse collection sites according to use and planned development patterns. 7. Monitor landfill use. Plan for additional landfill capacity on adjacent land. Explore alternative disposal methods. 8. 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. 9. Provide for recycling at collection stations and support a regional materials recovery center. 10. Carefully monitor sewer and water use and develop a capital improvements plan to accommodate projected development. 11. Consider means to provide water service to Brucetown and the Route 522 South area. �1�IIAL1�1.1�1�1K:�l A7 R�1 o11AAr►191014�f:1(.}'. 13. Consider alternative sources of water supply. 14. 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. 1995 Frederick County 131 Comprehensive Plan COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FASO: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II V. RE: Informal Discussion Regarding The Dr. Raymond Fish Master Development Plan DATE: November 21, 1995 Staff has received a request from Dr. Raymond L. Fish, to present a proposed master development plan for the overall development of his properties in Clearbrook. The properties affiliated with this master development plan are located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 81 intersection with Hopewell Road (Route 672). Currently, the properties are zoned B-2, General Business District, and B-3, Industrial Transition District, and accommodate the Kingdom Farm Animal Hospital and the AA Mobile Market facility. Greenway, Incorporated has prepared a preliminary master development plan which will be presented during the Planning Commission meeting. The project engineer is interested in discussing any comments or concerns with the Planning Commission. This will enable the project engineer to address these issues prior to formal review by this body. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Phone: (703) 665-3030; Surrounding States: (800) 238$882 RAYMOND L. FISH, DVM and DAVID M. GREGG, DVM 22G�1 0'j.'7 CJL� e-n-� "7"�vz KINGDOM FARM • P.O. BOX 147 • CLEARBROOK, VIRGINIA 22624 • 1-81 at Exit 83 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 5401678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II � RE: Informal Discussion Regarding Proposed Water Tank DATE: November 21, 1995 Mr. Jesse Moffett, Director of Public Utilities for the City of Winchester, will address the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors regarding a public utilities improvement project. The proposed improvement regards the construction of a water storage tank on property located within Frederick County. This property is owned by Fruit Hill Orchards, is 120 acres, and is accessible from Echo Lane. The property is located on the north side of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), just west of Route 37 and the Winchester Medical Center. The proposed water storage tank will provide additional capacity and pressure that will assist with fire protection and water demand for the high zone city water system. The proposed water storage tank will have a capacity of one million gallons and will be 35 feet in height. Mr. Moffett will present a preliminary site development plan which will be forwarded to Frederick County for review and approval. This presentation is for your information and does not require action; however, staff will ensure that all comments and concerns are adequately addressed by the applicant. t07 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: Informal Discussion Regarding Self -Service Storage Facilities In The M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District DATE: November 20, 1995 Staff received a request from Mr. E. E. Bayliss, III, Vice President of D & M Mechanical Contractors, Inc., to address the Planning Commission during the October 18, 1995 meeting regarding the allowance of self-service storage facilities in the M-1, Light Industrial District. Mr. Bayliss was unable to attend the October meeting and asked for permission to address the Planning Commission in December. Currently, self-service storage facilities are permitted in the B-2, Business General District and the B-3, Industrial Transition District. A Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code is not assigned to this use. Staff has included a copy of the performance standards that were created for self-service storage facilities during the 1990 comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance. These standards are required to be implemented during the design and construction phase for any zoning district that this use is permitter) in. Staff asks that the Planning Commission review this information and provide staff with direction for disposition of this request. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 D&M Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 178 Imboden Drive Winchester, Virginia 22603 (703) 665-0802 SEPT.19,1995 FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING DEPT. 107 N. KENT ST. WINCHESTER, VA 22601 ATTN: WAYNE MILLER DEAR WAYNE, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH YOUR COMMITTEE ON OCT. 18, 1995 FOR AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION TO GET YOUR GROUPS OPINIONS ON INCLUDING SELF STORAGE UNITS IN THE M-1 ZONING. MY ONLY REQUEST AT THIS TIME IS TO "TEST THE WATERS" AND DISCUSS THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE USEAGE. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS LOCATED IN THE BAKER LANE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND IS PRESENTLY OCCUPIED BY OUR COMPANY. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF A PLACE CAN BE ARRANGED FOR ME ON YOUR AGENDA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. RESPECTFULLY, avwc" E. E. BAYLISS, III VICE PRESIDENT § 165-41 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-44 A. All dogs shall be confined to secure pens or structures. B. Where kennels are allowed, zoning district separation buffers and screens. Category C as described by this chapter. shall be provided in relation to surrounding properties containing residential uses. § 165-42 Operation of slaughterhouses and rendering plants.10 A It shall be unlawful to operate any slaughterhouse, abattoir, rendering plant or establishment where animals or fowl, dead or alive, are processed or where food or feed is manufactured or processed, unless such place or establishment is maintained and operated in a clean and sanitary manner at all times. B. Such establishments shall be so constructed and maintained as to effectively control the entrance of insects and rodents. The doors. windows and other openings thereof shall be fitted with screen doors and wire window screens of not coarser than 14 -gauge mesh. C. The word "slaughterhouse." as used in this section, shall not be construed to prohibit persons who are actually farmers from killing their own cattle, sheep. swine, goats and fowl for their own family use. § 165-43. Motor vehicle service uses and public garages. All motor vehicle service uses and public garages shall meet the following requirements: A All repair shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. B. All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from view of surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen at least five (5) feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained. § 165-44. Self-service storage facilities. Where allowed, self-service storage facilities shall meet the following requirements. 10Ed00r's NOW Addeo at nme of adopoon of Code. see Ch. 1. General Prwtum Art. If. 16566 f l § 165-44 ZONING § 1.65-45 A. Only personal property associated with household use shall be stored in self-service storage facilities. B. Materials stored shall not be used or sold within the self-service storage facility. No commercial activities of any kind shall occur within the facility. No repair of vehicles. furniture or other materials or equipment shall occur within the facility. Signs shall be posted within the facility describing such limitations. C. No storage of hazardous, toxic or explosive materials shall occur in the self-service storage facility. Signs shall be posted within the facility describing such limitations. 0. The maximum size of any individual storage space or unit in a self- service storage facility shall be five hundred (500) square feet. E. The self-service storage facility. including loading areas and all storage areas. shall be totally enclosed by structures or by a six -foot -high opaque wall or fence. Such fences shall be set back at least six (6) feet from property boundaries. Landscaping shall be provided in such setback areas. including trees and shrubs. F. All storage shall be within an enclosed structure. The Zoning Administrator may allow the storage of personal vehicles associated with household use within areas enclosed by the fence or wall. G. For storage units that open to the outdoors. a twenty -foot -deep loading aisle or space shall be provided adjacent to each unit. Such loading aisles shall be separate from driveways used for internal circulation. H. Before a site plan is approved for a self-service storage facility. a copy of the lease agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval to ensure that the limitations described in this section have been included in the lease agreement. § 16545. Temporary trailers. A. Temporary trailers shall be allowed as a part of construction projects. However. they shall not be used for residential purposes. In addition. temporary trailers shall be removed before a final certificate of occupancy is issued for the use under construction. All such trailers shall meet applicable requirements of the Frederick County Code. In 16567 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 rVIEryIORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: Informal Discussion Regarding Pegasus Center Master Development Plan and Request for Zoning District Buffer Waiver DATE: November 20, 1995 Staff received a request from Mr. John C. Lewis, P.E., to address the Planning Commission regarding the above referenced project. The proposed Pegasus Center is located on property owned by Kevin and Patricia Adams, which currently houses the Airport Office Building. This proposal will create the Pegasus Business Center on 6.25 acres and improve access to the adjoining Project Hope facility. The properties are zoned B-2, Business General District and M-1, Light Industrial District respectively. Mr. Lewis plans to discuss the overall concept and phasing of this project which will include flex space for office and storage within a business park setting. Mr. Lewis will also address the Planning Commission regarding a waiver of a zoning district buffer. Mr. Lewis' proposal is to relocate the landscaping that would be required by the zoning district buffer to other areas on both properties. This proposal would allow for access improvements to each property and would separate truck traffic from automotive and pedestrian traffic. A sketch plan has been provided. to demonstrate how this could occur. Zoning District Buffer Waiver Request Section 165-37(5) of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to waive any or all of the requirements for required zoning district buffers if the proposed use on the property to be developed would also be permitted on the adjoining property. The Pegasus Business Center proposes to include flex space for offices with storage capacity. Specific tenants are not known at this time. The Project Hope facility which adjoins this site is similar in use, and is proposed to be improved as a part of this design. Staff will work with Mr. Lewis to ensure that appropriate plantings are provided in conjunction with required parking lot landscaping, should the Planning Commission agree to this waiver request. Mr. Lewis is interested in input from the Planning Commission that will assist him in final design for submittal to the various county review agencies. Mr. Lewis will provide a larger rendering of this proposal that is consistent with the handouts in your agenda. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 From: John Lewis To: Evan Wyatt Company: FREDCO of pages including this one: 3 Evan: Date: 11116is5 Time: 10:53 AM FAX * W-678-0682 These are drafts of the exhibits we plan to submit to the Planning Commission to accomplish the following: 1) request a waiver of the buffering requirements between Project Hope and the Adams property 2) preview a MDP concept for the eventual subdivision of the Adams property I'll be making a formal submittal before next Wednesday including 30 copies of each drawing on 24"x36" format. Please take a quick look at these and let me know if they will suffice. VOICE: 540-722-9377 FAX: 540-682-1881 COUNTY of FUrnu ari—u Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 l4lElv[OItANb TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director RE: Request for Buffer Waiver DATE: November 27, 1995 Attached is a letter from Steve Gyurisin, requesting a waiver of the zoning district buffer between the recently rezoned Cole property on Route 7, (Proffered for Mobile Home Sales) and the Franklin Mobile Home Park located directly to the rear of the Cole property. Staff is opposed to the waiver that is requested. There has been considerable discussion among the staff as to whether or not the circumstances involved even meet the qualifying criteria for the granting of a waiver. Though both properties will contain mobile homes, one is clearly a residential use and the other commercial. Staff would not be opposed to some reduction in the distance buffer, perhaps 50' as compared to the 100' required as part of a "C" category buffer when a full screen is provided. We also feel that there may be some room for negotiation regarding the screening to be provided, however, we do not feel that a complete waiver of the screening requirement is appropriate. The applicant's letter states that a full screen is in place today. Staff would point out that this is inaccurate. What actually exists on the site falls far short of a full screen. There is a cinder block wall approximately two feet in height with a six foot chain link fence on top. The fence has slats which were intended to be a visual barrier, however, the fence is in a state of disrepair and partial or completely missing. There is no landscaping present, much less a visual barrier as described by the ordinance. Please let me know if there are any questions concerning this matter. KCT/dc Attachments 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 2260I 540-667-2I39 • Fax. 540-665-0493 November 15, 1975 Mr. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Site Plan for Mr. John Tauber Professional Mobile Home Sales Route 7 East - Mildred Cole Property -Stonewall District Dear Wayne: In accord with §165.37 Buffer and Screening Requirements; paragraph D (5) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance we request that the Planning Commission waive the required buffer distance from 100 feet to 15 feet; and, that the screening be reduced to include the existing masonry wall topped with a screened fence along the rear property line of the above referenced property. The attached plat illustrates existing required distance buffers and screening for the site. The request for the Planning Commission to waive or rather, in this case, reduce the buffer distance and screening is due to the following special conditions and distinguishing features of the site and proposed uses: • The uses proposed for the site are allowed on the adjoining property known as the Franklin Mobile Home Park and zoned MH -l. Model mobile homes are proposed for sale by Mr. Tauber. • A fifty foot (50') distance buffer with full screening currently exists for the Franklin Mobile Home Park. An existing wall and fence along the property line serve to screen the two properties. • The narrowness and shape of the piece of property for the proposed mobile home sales is a special condition or feature of the site that is not commonly shared by other properties in this area or the B-3 zone. The lot is triangular shaped with two panhandles, one east and one south. • The use of the adjacent property impacts the conditions of the site proposed for development since a distance buffer and screen is in place for the existing adjoining similar mobile home uses. :F Mr. Wayne Miller Site Plan for Mr. John Tauber November 15,1995 • Page 2 • The placement of full required distance buffers would create an undue hardship upon the property, greatly reducing the developable area. This is not a hardship that is generally shared by other properties and the reduction of buffers and screens would not be of substantial detriment to any adjacent properties. The required buffer distance for a "C" type buffer is 100 total feet with a full screen and 200 total feet with a landscape screen for the portion of the site that adjoins Franklin Mobile Home park zoned MH -1. Model home uses are in both zones and a distance buffer with full screen is in existence between the uses. A waiver or reduction is requested so this property may be used as proffered. Since distance buffers are based upon the nature of an activity and are required to protect existing adjacent uses the existing buffer distance of fifty feet (50') and existing wall and fence appears satisfactory. The additional 15' proposed is the same as the required B-3 setback and enlarges the total buffer area to sixty-five feet (651). The owner and tenant have in good faith provided the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Planning staff with their intent to use the property for model mobile/modular home sales. Full application of the required screens and buffers severely limit the use of this irregular shaped property. At this juncture, we seek not to change the law, but relief so that the property may be used. I understand that this will be discussed at your first meeting in December with the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Obert w. clifford & associates, inc. - A ` ��, �. Ut��A-cam Ste M. Gy ris' SMG/cls attachment cc Frederick Co. Planning Staff Mr. John Tauber Ms. Mildred Cole, c/o Mr. Taz Schultz Mr. Charles DeHaven Mr. Charles Orndoff Mr. John Light R�� —7- 41 21-115 AM5 B3 frjr ) - 7� /w ` - M-1 w6 A. b P.O. BUILDABLE AIrt A. p- 14, r A d" fv .eJ, f B2 T— 0AWNI —w— N, -7- Aw B2 I Y Z, JU FI tK IN. Mo. I L C�` ji 0 M e PARK GRAPHIC SCALE IN MT I bm - 30 rL Na 4� DAM ti f Professional Mobile Home Brokers Inc. OCTOW it I Gilbert W. Clifford and Agsociates. Inc. 5054.0 W [—d P1-- Met— Frederick County, Virginia TOTAL S1 7E.- Z 7775 ACRES BUILDABLE AREA CURRENTLY ALLOWED: 0.5365 ACRES Ep.aw VA. 5fAft t�.0 f e'j V� Iwo fp. aan E 0*N" . W IIIII uA —7- 41 21-115 AM5 B3 frjr ) - 7� /w ` - M-1 w6 A. b P.O. BUILDABLE AIrt A. p- 14, r A d" fv .eJ, f B2 T— 0AWNI —w— N, -7- Aw B2 I Y Z, JU FI tK IN. Mo. I L C�` ji 0 M e PARK GRAPHIC SCALE IN MT I bm - 30 rL Na 4� DAM ti f Professional Mobile Home Brokers Inc. OCTOW it I Gilbert W. Clifford and Agsociates. Inc. 5054.0 W [—d P1-- Met— Frederick County, Virginia COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAY: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II k RE: Informal Discussion Regarding Revision To Preston Place Master Development Plan DATE: November 21, 1995 Staff has received a request from Mr. Garrett S. Runey, P.E., of Bengtson, DeBell & Elkin, LTD., to address the Planning Commission regarding a revision to the above referenced master development plan. The property affiliated with this master plan is located on the north and south sides of Airport Road (Route 645), approximately 300 feet east of the intersection with Front Royal Pike (Route 522). A master development plan was approved by Frederick County in January 1993 to allow for the construction of 120 apartment units on the south side of Airport Road and for the construction of 117 townhouse units on the north side of Airport Road. The developer completed the construction of the apartment units in 1993. A revised master development plan was approved by Frederick County in November 1994 to modify the housing type on the north side of Airport Road. This approval did not increase the density; however, it did allow for the construction of 72 apartment units in phase one and 45 townhouse units in phase two. The developer completed the construction of the 72 apartment units in 1995. The purpose of this informal discussion is to request that phase two of the property located on the north side of Airport Road be allowed to be developed into 44 apartment units. Mr. Runey will present a preliminary master development plan during the meeting that depicts this new proposal. The applicant will be asking the Planning Commission for their view on the proposal to modify the housing type for build -out of this project. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 r am A BENGTSON ENGINEERS 00DELL & SURVEYORS ELXIN. LTD. PLANNERS d LANOSCAPF IV ARCHITECTS November 20, 1995 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Preston Place Apartments Master Development Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Wyatt: 808 MOOREFIELD PARK DRIVE PH. ON) 320.2667 SUITE 220 FAX (004) =4131 RICHMONO VA 23236 I am writing on behalf of Mr. Michael McNamara. President of Castle Develop- ment Corporation, to request being placed on the December 6, 1995 Planning Commission agenda. The purpose of this request is to obtain an informal hearing before the Planning Commission to present a proposed amendment to the referenced plan. The proposed amendment is to construct 44 apartment units instead of the 45 townhouse for sale units shown on the approved Master Development Plan. A drawing showing the revised concept is currently being prepared and will be available prior to the meeting date. Please call me if there are any questions or if additional information is required. Sincerely, Garre4 S. Ru y. II, P.E.. L. S. Vice President GSR:smb cc: M. McNamara OFRCES r"OUGHOUT WRWN14 4 MARYLAND