Loading...
PC 02-01-95 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMNUSSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia FEBRUARY 1, 1995 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Meeting Minutes of December 7, 1995 ........................ A 2) Bimonthly Report ...................................... B 3) Committee Reports .................................... C 4) Citizen Comments .................................... D PUBLIC HEARINGS 5) Truck Rental and Leasing Facility Amendment - An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article X, Business and Industrial District, to allow truck rental and leasing facilities in the M-1, Light Industrial District, and Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, to create performance standards for truck rental and leasing facilities in the M-1 (Light Industrial District). (Mr. Wyatt) ....................... E 6) Public Hearing Regarding Agricultural & Forestal Districts. (Mr. Wyatt) ......................................... F OTHER ITEMS 7) Annual Report (Jean Moore) ....................................... G 8) Resolution of Appreciation For James W. Golladay, Jr., (Chairman) . < .... H MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on December 7, 1994. PRESENT: Planning Commissioner resent were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. ABSENT: John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director. - CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTE - OCTOBER 19, 1994 AND NOVEMBER 2. 1994 Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of October 19, 1994 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of November 2, 1994 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS Sanitation Authority --11/3094 Mtn Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the expansion of Parkins Mill is on schedule to be completed next fall. She said that the bids for the 522 South Sewer Project are scheduled to be opened today. PROPOSED MAINTENANCE HANGERIOFFICE SPACE AT THE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Miller said that a representative for the Winchester Regional Airport has requested an opportunity to present a site plan to develop a new hanger that will provide two stories of office space, as well as an area that will be utilized for the maintenance of aircraft. Mr. Miller said that additional parking areas will be provided for the proposed facility. Mr. Michael D. Kane, of Delta Airport Consultants P.E., came forward to present the site plan to the Commission. The Planning Commission had no problems with the site plan as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine, seconded by Mr. Light, and unanimously passed, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby provide administrative approval authority for the proposed site plan of the Winchester Regional Airport once all comments have been adequately addressed. Subdivision Application #012-94 of Lenoir City Company to subdivide a 6.954 acre lot from a 48.834 acre tract. This property is located at the end of McGhee Road in the Stonewall Industrial Park and is identified with PINS 43-19-2 and 43-19-43 in the Gainesboro JJ L if t. Action - Approved 3 Mr. Miller said that no use has yet been specified for the property and no review agencies have any particular concerns at this time. Mr. Miller said that there is an approved master plan for the Stonewall Industrial Park of which this property is a part. He said that the subdivision met all ordinance requirements. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G. W. CIifford & Associates, the consulting engineers, was present to answer questions from the Commission. The Commission had no problems with the subdivision. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Subdivision Application #012-94 of Lenoir City Company to subdivide a 6.954 acre parcel in the Stonewall Industrial Park. WILLIS WHITE REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION VARIANCE FOR PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS 53-A-92 AND 53-A-90 Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Miller said that in conjunction with their estate planning, Mr. M. Willis White, on behalf of his parents, Mr. & Mrs. C. Ridgely White, is requesting permission to create a minor rural subdivision that does not meet current ordinance requirements. Mr. Miller said that the issue is not the permitting of reduced setbacks, but one of allowing a division of land that will result in reduced setbacks. He explained that there are two houses on the property and this proposed division will result in the houses being located on separate tracts. Mr. Miller said that because of the location of the houses, it would be impossible to divide the land so as to put the houses on separate tracts and not have reduced setbacks. Mr. M. Willis White said that he was asking for a 32' setback reduction from the house on the proposed 11.008 acre tract identified as PIN 53-A-92 and a 22' setback reduction from the house on parcel 53-A-90. The Commission had no problems with allowing the subdivision that would result in reduced setbacks. Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of allowing a land division that will result in reduced 4 setbacks on property owned by Mr, and Mrs. C. Ridgely White and identified as Parcels 53- A-92 and 53-A-90. Master Development Plan #007-94 of Saratoga Meadows for 42 single-family detached traditional housing units. This property is located on the south side of Senseny Road (Rt. 657), approximately 150' west of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), and is identified with PINS 55- A-195 and 54 -A -125A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Bruce Edens, of Greenway, Inc., representing the applicant and owner, John Henry Giles and June L. Shreck, presented the master plan to the Commission. Mr. Tierney gave the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Tierney said that the location of the proposed stormwater management facilities needs to be indicated and described on all subdivision plats. The staff noted that a homeowners association will be required to maintain the stormwater management facilities and possibly, the areas with buffers and screening. Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Mrs. Pat Gochenour, resident of Shawnee District, wanted to see a halt to the rezoning of rural land to residential in the Shawnee District. She felt that community facilities and services were no longer adequate to handle the people that live in this district. Mr. George Lambert, resident of Shawnee District, was concerned about increasing traffic on Greenwood Road and he felt the road needed to be straightened. He also felt the east side of Winchester did not get the community facilities and services that other areas of the county have. The Commission asked Mr. Edens if he would be able to meet the Planning staff's comments on stormwater management and Mr. Edens said that he would be able to meet those requirements. It was also asked if the applicant planned to install a traffic light across Country Park Drive and Mr. Edens responded that none was planned at this time. No other issues were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #007-94 of Saratoga Meadows contingent on the Board approving the pending rezoning application and that the 5 applicant adequately addresses all issues presented by the staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board, by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Shickle, DeHaven, Thomas, Romine, Golladay, Copenhaver, Light, Stone N -Q,* Morris, Wilson (Mr. Marker was absent.) Master Development Plan #008-94 of Westminster Canterbury for the construction of six new residential cottages. This property is located on Westminster Canterbury Drive, off Route 522, and is identified with PINS 53 -A -63A, 53 -A -63B, 53-4-3-J, and 53 -A -52B, and is located in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Terry Stone said that he would abstain from discussing or voting on this master development plan, due to a professional relationship. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., of G.W. Clifford and Associates, Consulting Engineers, was representing this application. Mr. Maddox said that the revision involves the addition of six units (3 duplex units). Mr. Maddox said that no other future cottages are planned and all remaining land is designated as open space. Mr. Tierney said that along with some additional technical information that needs to be provided on the plan, the applicant needs to provide information to show that square footage requirements for duplex units are being met. Mr. Tierney also commented that on the previous master development plan, the staff had concerns about the location of the connection to the existing Westminster Canterbury parking lot. He said that the curve where the road intersects the parking lot appears to be the least desirable location for such a connection. Mr. Tierney said that the proposed duplex units will be accessed through this least desirable road connection. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission had no problems with the proposed master development plan revision. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby i recommend approval of Revised Master Development Plan #008-94 of Westminst, Canterbury for the construction of six new residential cottages contingent upon all staff ar review agency comments being met. The vote on this master development plan was: YES (TO APPROVES Shickle, DeHaven, Morris, Thomas, Wilson, Golladay, Copenhave Light ABSTAIN: Stone, Romine (Mr. Marker was absent.) Rezoning Application #008-94 of James Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres from RP (ResidentiL Performance) to B2 (Business General). This property is located at the intersection c Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road and is identified with PINS 64A -4-20A, 64A -10-A, 64A 10-B in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Tabled for 90 days at the Applicant's Request Mr. Tierney gave the background information and review agency comments Mr. Tierney said that this rezoning was tabled at the Commission's November 2 meetin., because of concerns with the existing street network and concerns with other less desirable uses that would be allowed on this property, if it was rezoned to B2. Mr. Thomas said that at the last meeting there was some indication that Mr James Carroll was promised a rezoning. Mr. Thomas referred to the Planning Commission'! minutes of February 7, 1990 at which time a rezoning of 2.8132 acres from RP (Residentia` Performance) to B2 (Business General) was being considered and appears to be the same parcel. Mr. Thomas said the rezoning was denied by the Planning Commission because ii was felt that the proposed commercial use of the property was not compatible with the adjoining residential neighborhood. He said there was also discussion on a commercial entrance on Route 50 and the increased traffic. Chairman Golladay said that he received a petition in opposition to the proposed rezoning from residents of Miller Heights Subdivision. Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, the Commission voted unanimously to make the petition was made a part of the official record. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., of G.W. Clifford and Associates, Consulting Engineers, was present to represent Mr. James Carroll, the owner. Mr. Maddox stat( hat the primary reason given for not rezoning this property was "transportation oriented." He said the improvements that would be required as a result of rezoning this property would create a solution to the transportation problem: the road would have to be widened, curb and gutter and stormwater management installed, a right-hand deceleration lane would be required, and in addition, the state has plans for a traffic light at this intersection. Mr. Maddox said this was an excellent opportunity to build a road that would serve the future needs of Frederick County. He explained that at some point along Route 50 there needs to be a connection back into the very large area between Route 50 and Senseny Road that was already zoned Residential Performance. Commissioners asked Mr. Maddox if B1 zoning was considered. Mr. Maddox replied that B1 zoning had significant problems; for example, 35% open space was required. Mr. Maddox said that they would be willing to "proffer out" any objectionable B2 uses. Commissioners asked Mr. Maddox if he had discussed uses with the residents of Pembridge Heights and Mr. Maddox replied that he had not. Mr. Maddox added that this area has been designated as a "business corridor" in the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Golladay called for public comments and the following persons from Pembridge Heights Subdivision came forward tospeak in opposition: Ms. Joanne Flaker, a member of the Board of Directors of the Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association and a resident of the same, came forward to speak about safety issues. She felt that rezoning to B2 would increase traffic and endanger the safety of drivers, pedestrians, and children. She said that the entrance from Route 50 to Custer Avenue is both narrow and curved. She said that the business zoning would bring in many people who were unfamiliar with their neighborhood and she was concerned about the potential for robbery and vandalism. Mr. Charles Bennett, member of the Board of Directors of the Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association and resident of the same, came forward to speak about the increased traffic that would be generated from B2 zoning. Mr. Bennett said that according to Robert Childress of VDOT, commercial development of this property would have a significant impact on the adjacent Route 50/Route 781 intersection. He said that according to Mr. Childress, intersection improvements and signalization would be required to accommodate the additional traffic. Mr. Bennett felt that it would not be possible to add turning lanes because of existing utility lines and stormwater systems. Mr. Bennett said that according to Mr. Peglusi, Superintendent of Transportation for Frederick County Schools, there would be a definite effect on school bus traffic. Mr. Bennett said that the rezoning would definitely result in increased traffic which would result in more congestion, more accidents, and reduced safety. Mr. John Smoot, Vice President of Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association, said that the drainage swale along Route 50 takes care of the stormwater from NI all of Pembridge Heights and from Route 50 all the way up to I-81. He said that the tree line is also a drainage area. Mr. Smoot explained the location of the gas utility lines. He felt it would be a major undertaking, if at all possible, to disturb all of this in order to improve the road network. Mr. Cary Kimble, a resident of Pembridge Heights and a member of the homeowners association, reflected on the effect this rezoning would have on the quality of life in Pembridge Heights. Mr. Kimble said that young parents push strollers on the streets, kids play football in their front yards, residents walk and jog through the neighborhood, and everyone knows their neighbors. He felt all this would be disrupted if a commercial zoning was established in this area. Mr. Gene Koepfler, President of the Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association, summarized by saying that the reasons for not rezoning this property were that it would effect the quality of life, the safety issues, the traffic issues, and construction obstacles. Mr. Koepfler said that when Mr. Carroll's rezoning was defeated in 1990, it was based on the safety concerns of a few residents of Miller Heights and Pembridge Heights. He said nothing else has changed since that time except there are 800 more people living in that area. Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, former member of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, said that he wanted to describe how the situation with Mr. Carroll got to this point. He said the reason he decided to speak was because there was an undercurrent that there was something under -handed about the discussion in 1987. Mr. Stiles said that in 1987 when Pembridge Heights, then called "Grove Heights" was proposed, there were many people from College Park opposed to its development. Mr. Stiles said that one of the genuine concerns was that the only access to Grove Heights was through College Park and the concern was that the streets in College Park were not designed to carry "through" traffic and they were especially not designed to carry "construction" traffic. He said that in an effort to resolve this, Mr. Grove approached Mr. Carroll about first using access across his property simply for construction, but that evolved into a proposal to construct an entrance to this subdivision across Mr. Carroll's property from Custer Avenue. He said that Mr. Carroll came before the Planning Commission and said that if he would allow this, he would be interested in developing his property commercially. Mr. Stiles said there was no objection from anyone on the Commission at that time. He said that Mr. Carroll should have come in at that time and applied for rezoning, so that people who purchased homes in Pembridge Heights would have known that the entrance to their property was commercial. Mr. Stiles said that all of the discussions on this matter were open to the public. Mr. Jim Gibbons, resident of Miller Heights, at 105 Stanley Circle, was in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Gibbons questioned who would pay for the road improvements. He said he didn't want commercial zoning and he felt it should remain residential. rJ The Commissioners felt that safety of the road systems was their biggest concern. It was noted that there were several hundred acres of guaranteed undeveloped residential zoning south of this property that would probably use this access in the future. Commissioners noted that if this property was rezoned, the entrance would have to be improved and this was an opportunity to correct a crucial area that could get worse in the future. They felt that dialogue should continue between the developer and the Pembridge Heights homeowners to see if an agreeable solution could be worked out. Some Commissioners felt that Mr. Carroll should have come in for rezoning back in 1987 before the residential neighborhood was established. They noted that the property was actually separated from Route 50 and many of the uses permitted in B2 zoning would not be appropriate next to residential property. Mr. Maddox said that the owner was very much interested in implementing an improved road system and he requested that the Commissioners table the rezoning request for 90 days so that dialogue could take place with the homeowners association on an amicable solution. Upon motion made by Mr. Dehaven and seconded by Mr. Light. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby honor the applicants request to table Rezoning Application #008-94 of James Carroll for 90 days. The vote was: YES (TO TABLE): Shickle, DeHaven, Morris, Romine, Wilson, Golladay, Copenhaver, Light NO. Stone, Thomas (Mr. Marker was absent.) Rezoning Application #009-94 of Valley Mill Estates to rezone 19.35 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located north of Valley Mill Road and east of Greenwood Road (Rout 656) and is identified with PINS 55-A-176 and 55 -A - 176B in the Shawnee District. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Tierney said that the staffs' original recommendation was for denial, but now feels the applicant has addressed the staffs' concerns on impacts through a revised proffer statement. Mr. Tierney said that the applicant has reduced the number of single family dwellings from 32 to 22, which reduces the ADT from 320 to 220; the amount to be 10 paid at the time of building permit acquisition has increased from $3,142.00 to $4,148.00; and the amount proffered per lot to Fire and Rescue has increased from $28.00 to $45.00. Mr. Tierney said that these revised proffers met the county's impact model. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, of G.W. Clifford and Associates, Consulting Engineers, was present to represent the owners, Gerald Racey and the Georgia Wierman Estate. Mr. Gyurisin presented the development proposal to the Commissioners. Commissioners stated that if Julee Street was not going to be used as a connector, then a cul-de-sac or "T-type" turnaround should be established there for emergency vehicles. Mr. Gyurisin said that they could work out the details with VDOT. Mr. Richard Pifer, one of the partners in this development, said that they planned for this to be an "upgraded" Pioneer Heights. He added that the end of Julee Street effects only one house. Mr. Walter Cunningham, Assistant Chief at Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue, said that he met with the applicant to discuss the fire and rescue issues. Mr. Cunningham said that they were satisfied that the revised proffers took care of emergency service impacts. Mr. Charles Barr, a resident of Mill Race Estates, came forward to speak in opposition to this rezoning. Mr. Barr felt that he was not given enough advanced notice of this proposal. He felt that the proposed development would negatively effect the quality of life for the people in Mill Race Estates. He suggested that this request be tabled until he could notify the other residents in Mill Race Estates. Ms. Betty Mullin, nearby resident, said that the signs for the public hearing were not placed where they could be seen well. She also felt that not enough advanced notice was given about this proposal. Some discussion took place between the Commissioners, the staff, and the applicant to verify that public hearing signs were placed correctly and that adjoiner notification and advertising was done on time and appropriately. Commissioners stated that although the Comprehensive Plan clearly identifies this area for residential development, they were very concerned about the transportation problem in the area. They felt that Valley Mill Road was a disaster from a traffic standpoint and some Commissioners felt it was time to halt further rezonings until something could be done to remedy the traffic problems. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby 11 recommend approval of Rezoning Application #009-94 of Valley Mill Estates to rezone 19.35 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) by the following majority vote: YE TO APPROVE): Thomas, Romine, Stone, Copenhaver, DeHaven, Golladay NO: Light, Morris, Shickle (Mr. Wilson was absent.) DISCUSSION ON THE UPDATE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mr. Tierney presented the recommended update of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Tierney said that in addition to the minor statistical updates, a significant amount of information from the recently completed corridor report has been included within the Land Use Chapter. Also included in the Land Use Chapter are revisions to the Eastern Road Plan. He explained that these revisions consist of deleting or moving certain road segments that for various reasons cannot be constructed as shown on the current plan. Mr. Tierney reviewed each of the road changes with the Commission. Mr. Tierney said that one other item that needs some further discussion is the proposed expansion of the sewer and water service area west to the railroad tracks in the area of Route 11, just north of Stephens City. Mr. Tierney explained the nearest route for extension that was recommended by Wendy Jones, the Director of the Sanitation Authority. The Commission suggested that a statement be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan that the County is considering including this area in the sewer and water service area, but not include a recommended route of extension. The Commissioners felt that there may be some other possibilities available other than the one suggested by Mr. Jones. The Commission had no other outstanding issues with the update and instructed the staff to advertise it for public hearing for January 3, 1995. INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH MR. LINDEN UNGER REGARDING A POSSIBLE REZONING No Action 12 Mr. Linden Unger was not present and the Commission asked the staff to reschedule Mr. Unger for another meeting. CANCELLATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECEMBER 21 MEETING The Commission unanimously voted to cancel their December 21 meeting. ADJOURNMENT p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report DATE: January 18, 1995 (1) Rezonin s Pending: dates are submittal dates Brown Lovett, Jr. 09/14/94 Ston RA to M1 James Carroll 10/07/94 Shaw RP to B2 Valley Mill Estates 11/10/94 Shaw RA to RP (2) Rezonin s A roved: (dates are BOS meeting dates) C. L. Robinson 11/09/94 BkCk RA to B3 Frederick Mall 12/14/94 Shaw RA to RP Frederick Mall 12/14/94 Shaw RA to RP (3) Rezonin s Denied: dates are BOS meeting dates) None (4) Conditional Use Permits Pending: dates are submittal dates Mark Anderson & veterinarian James Casey 12/08/94 Ston hospital/office (5) Conditional Use Permits Approved: dates are approval dates) Robin Dassler 12/14/94 Gaines Private Dog Breeding Kennel (6) Conditional Use Permits Denied: dates are denial dates Joe Edmiston 12/14/94 BcCk Kennel 2 (7) Site Plans Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. Grace Brethren Church Flex Tech Lake Centre Garber Westminster Canterbury Federal Express Bank of Clarke Co. Lakeview Garden Apartments 09/12/89 Opeq Trmt.facil 06/08/90 Shaw Church 10/25/90 Ston Lgt. Industrial 05/15/91 Shaw Townhouses 07/26/94 Shaw Retail Commercial 11/16/94 Gaines Duplex Housing 12/16/94 Shaw Warehouse 12/16/94 Shaw New Bank Branch 01/05/95 Shaw Apartments (8) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates) Regency Lakes Sec. C Taco Bell Preston Place Apt. II Amoco Foam Cracker Barrell Shenandoah Valley Baptist Kraft General Foods 12/01/94 Ston Mobile Homes 12/09/94 Gaines Restaurant 12/09/94 Shaw Apartments 12/09/94 Ston Outdoor Storage 12/21/94 Shaw Dining Addition 01/05/95 Opeq Classroom Addition 01/17/95 Ston Freezer Addition (9) Site Plans Withdrawn: (dates are withdrawn dates) Red Star Express Lines 01/06/95 Ston (10) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Briarwood Est. 01/04/94 Ston (11) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C or BOS approval dates Abrams Point, Lake Centre Fredericktowne Harry Stimpson Phase I Est., Sec 9 06/13/90 Shaw 06/19/91 Shaw 10/06/93 Opeq 10/26/94 Opeq (12) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Fieldstone Heights 04/25/94 (13) PMDP Approved: (Dates are approval dates) Ston Saratoga Meadows 12/16/94 Shaw 3 (14) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval• (dates are BOS aDDroval dates Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 BaCk James R. Wilkins III 04/14/93 Shaw Star Fort 09/14/94 Gain (15) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pendinq:(submit dates) None (16) BZA Applications Approved• (approval dates) Weber's Nursery 1/17/95 Ston Wilkins Dev. Corp. 1/17/95 Shaw (17)_BZA Applications Denied• None (18) -.PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER None IE. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #73 Jan. -15 1. Plan Reviews _ADgrovals. and Site Inspections: Evan Wyatt reviewed revisions to the proposed Bank of Clarke County site plan and revisions to the existing Albin Ridge Mini -Warehouse site plan. Evan Wyatt approved a site plan for the construction of a new classroom building at the Shenandoah Valley Baptist Church site on Valley Pike. 2. Meetings Evan Wyatt met with Gary DeOms to continue work on the proposed Double Church and Refuge Church Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Evan Wyatt met with Gary DeOms and Brenda Diehl to begin work on the required update to the existing Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The renewal date for this district is May 31, 1995. Evan Wyatt met with Jesse Richardson to begin work on proposed ordinance amendments pertaining to the Right To Farm Legislation. The intent is to create reasonable performance standards for agricultural uses that will assist in mitigating potential nuisance suits. Evan Wyatt met with Tim Youmans to discuss the proposed revisions to the 1995 ISTEA Enhancement Grant Application that will request additional funding for the acquisition of the Grim Farm. Bob Watkins met with Ed Strawsnyder and other to discuss new office construction. 3. Transportation Bob Watkins met with VDOT and City officials to discuss the Winchester Area Transportation Study. g = Departmental Bob Watkins worked with consultants and contractors on setting up an upgraded computer network in the new offices. Jean Moore and Evan Wyatt attended a meeting with the representatives of the Technical Review Committee to continue work on the site plan review stream -lining process. Jean Moore and Evan Wyatt continued work on updating information for the 1994 Annual Report. 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 H RE: Truck Rental and Leasing Facility Amendments DATE: January 17, 1995 The Planning Commission discussed a proposal to allow truck rental and leasing facilities as a principal use in the M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District on January 4, 1995. The Planning Commission felt that this was an appropriate use in the M-1 District, provided that reasonable performance standards were created to regulate this type of operation. The Planning Commission suggested that staff consider the performance standards that were created for truck or fleet maintenance facilities in 1993. The Planning Commission instructed staff to advertise the proposed amendments for public hearing. The following information regards proposed amendments to Article X - Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, and Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Staff asks that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendments and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 AMENDMENT Approvals: PLANNING COMNIISSION FebruaLry 1 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165, ZONING W 1EREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article X, Business and Industrial District, to allow truck rental and leasing facilities in the M-1, Light Industrial District, and Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, to create performance standards for truck rental and leasing facilities in the M-1 (Light Industrial District), was referred to the Planning Commission on February 1, 1995; and, WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on February 1, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on _, 1995; and W7IEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance 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 as follows: That Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article X, Business and Industrial Districts, and Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, is amended as described on the following attachment: ARTICLE X - Business and Industrial Zoning Districts 165-82D M-1 Light Industrial District Allowed Uses Truck Rental and Leasing, Without Drivers SIC - 7513 ARTICLE IV - Supplementary Use Regulations 165-48.2 Truck or Fleet Maintenance Facilities and Truck Rental and Leasing; Facilities, Without Drivers Where allowed, truck or fleet maintenance facilities and truck rental and leasing facilities without drivers, shall meet the following requirements: A. In the M-1 Light Industrial District, truck or fleet maintenance facilities and truck rental and leasing facilities, without drivers, shall only be permitted in industrial parks. B. Truck or fleet maintenance facilities and truck rental and leasing facilities, without drivers, may have fuel service provided that it is limited to one gasoline storage tank of 10,000 gallons or less and one diesel storage tank of 10,000 gallons or less. C. All repair and maintenance operations shall occur within a completely enclosed structure. D. Outdoor storage of parts associated with repair and maintenance shall not be permitted. E. Retail sales shall not be permitted. F. The Planning Commission may require additional buffers and screening other than those defined in Section 165-37 of this Chapter. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this day of , 1995. A Copy Teste John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator 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 41 RE: Double Church and Refuge Church Agricultural And Forestal Districts DATE: January 17, 1995 The Planning Commission held an informal discussion regarding the above referenced districts during the regular meeting of January 4, 1995. The purpose of that discussion was to evaluate the progress that has occurred since the Planning Commission Retreat in November 1994 and to provide input to staff prior to public hearing. During the January 4, 1995 meeting, the Planning Commission examined the possibility of relocating the portion of the Urban Development Boundary Line that traverses the 132 acre Charles Racey tract, and discussed the potential for creating land use and land division restrictions for properties that are part of this district. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a list of the proposed land use and land division restrictions, and to advertise these districts for public hearing. Enclosed is information regarding the proposed agricultural and forestal districts. This information includes tables that provide data for each proposed district, and the proposed land use and land division restrictions that would be placed on all properties within each district. Staff will provide a graphics display during the public hearing that depicts both districts. Please review this information and contact staff if there are additional comments or concerns regarding this issue. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 PROPOSED DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT PARTICIPANTS The following tables provide information regarding the location, ownership, acreage, and deed description for parcels proposed for a new agricultural and forestal district within Frederick County, Virginia. These parcels are located in the southeastern portion of Frederick County, with road frontage along Double Church Road (Route 641), Canterburg Road (Route 636), Grim Road (Route 640), Wise Mill Lane (Route 737), and Salem Church Road (Route 735). The parcels proposed for inclusion within the proposed Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District were suggested by the property owners in the described area during a meeting held at the Stelzl residence on May 17, 1994. Additional parcels have been incorporated into the proposed agricultural district through periodic updates made by Dr. Gary DeOms of the Frederick County Extension Service. DOUBLE CHURCH AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT MAP # PROPERTY OWNER ACRES DEED BK/PG # 85-A-126 Clayton & Crystal Hartley, Jr. 22.42 820/129 85 -A -126A David & Meridee Powers 23.70 817/1097 85-A-127 John C. Bradburne, Jr. 87.19 370/105 85 -A -131A Louis & Betty Stelzl 24.74 000/000 85-A-139 Emmett L. Scothorn 105.63 615/729 85-A-140 Charles W. Racey 132.15 586/820 86-A-21 A Herbert Painter 6.34 599/211 86-A-23 Herbert Painter 0.25 343/374 86-A-25 Louis & Betty Stelzl 150.50 331/515 86-A-27 Arthur B. Ritenour, Jr. 10.50 331/517 86-A-32 Stuart & Anna Madagan 88.11 747/036 86-A-33 Louis & Betty Stelzl 0.12 331/515 86-A-34 John & Linda Delean 5.00 792/1627 86-A-35 Louis & Betty Stelzi l l i .0 745/913 86-A-36 Orville & Jean Hylton 1 90.00 505/682 I if 86-A-39 Floyd & Kay Rosenberger 22.00 736/754 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM TABLES Number of Parcels 86-A-43 Bruce E. Welch 20.00 749/730 1,405.31 86-A-46 Herbert M. Painter 29.00 611/539 86-A-70 Kenneth E. Wymer 28.98 658/405 86 -A -72B Kenneth E. Wymer 10.02 568/458 86-A-228 Howard & Jewell White 91.50 000/000 86 -A -230A Jeffrey & Joseph Gore 0.97 771/1242 86 -A -230B Jeffrey M. Gore 16.03 590/449 86-A-231 Fred B. Gore 2.5 000/000 86-A-232 Howard & Jewell White 66.22 468/000 86-A-239 Donald & Mary Welch 9.39 356/257 86 -A -239A Donald & Mary Welch 5.00 436/575 86-A-241 William H. Ireland 10.59 6651081 86-A-242 William H. Ireland 3.00 000/000 86 -A -244B Donald & Mary Welch 5.17 000/000 86-A-245 John & Virginia Booth 0.5 000/000 86-A-250 Howard & Jewell White 9.00 468/000 86-A-254 Howard & Jewell White 5.00 747/025 86-A-264 Arthur B. Ritenour, Jr. 0.50 000/000 86 -A -264A Arthur B. Ritenour, Jr. 0.53 483/336 86-A-266 Nelson R. Clevenger 74.26 000/000 86 -A -266B James L. Greene 5.5 000/000 93-A- 14A Donald & Mary Welch 20.0 000/000 93-A-79 Stuart & Anna Madagan 112.0 000/000 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM TABLES Number of Parcels Number of Owners Total Acreage 39 21 1,405.31 PROPOSED REFUGE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT PARTICIPANTS The following tables provide information regarding the location, ownership, acreage, and deed description for parcels proposed for a new agricultural and forestal district within Frederick County, Virginia. These parcels are located in the southeastern portion of Frederick County, with road frontage along Refuge Church Road (Route 640). The parcels proposed for inclusion within the proposed Refuge Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District were suggested by the property owners in the described area during a meeting held at the Stelzl residence on May 17, 1994. Additional parcels have been incorporated into the proposed agricultural district through periodic updates made by Dr. Gary DeOms of the Frederick County Extension Service. REFUGE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT MAP # PROPERTY OWNER ACRES DEED BK/PG # 92-A-73 Lawrence W. Fagg 71.00 340/267 93-A-16 James L. Greene 100.00 720/193 93-A-17 Dale & Cynthia Ballenger 39.97 807/1540 93 -A -17B James L. Greene 71.83 805/567 93-A-22 Raymond E. Conner 26.00 536/321 93-A-23 Raymond E. Conner 32.00 536/321 93-A-36 Donald & Doris Jones 3.00 000/000 93-A-37 Donald & Doris Jones 0.50 000/000 93-A-38 David L. Hartley 2.0 611/045 93-A-48 David L. Hartley 2.5 611/045 93-A-49 David L. Hartley 10.0 611/045 93-2-4 Raymond E. Conner 8.00 536/321 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM TABLES Number of Parcels Number of Owners Total Acreage 12 6 366.80 LAND USE AND LAND DIVISION RESTRICTIONS Each parcel proposed for inclusion in the Double Church Road and Refuge Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District is zoned RA, Rural Areas District. This zoning classification allows specific uses by -right or with a conditional use permit, and permits various types of land divisions. Land owners that represent this request believe that some of the land uses and land divisions may not be appropriate within an agricultural and forestal district. Therefore, it has been recommended that specific restrictions be placed on the land proposed for these districts to exclude certain land uses and land divisions. The following pages provide the existing land uses and land divisions that have been recommended for exclusion for land that is included in the Double Church Road and Refuge Church Road Agricultural and Forestal Districts: BY -RIGHT USES 1) Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer substations, transmission lines and towers, pipes, meters and other facilities, railroad facilities and sewer and water facilities and lines owned by public utilities, railroad companies or public agencies. CONDITIONAL PERMIT USES 1) Country General Stores 2) Service Stations 3) Restaurants 4) Television and Radio Stations 5) Motels 6) Auction Houses 7) Campgrounds, Tourist Camps, Recreation Areas and Resorts 8) Commercial Outdoor Recreation, Athletic or Park Facilities 9) Nationally Chartered Fraternal Lodges, Civic Clubs, Social Centers, and their Related Facilities 10) Ambulance Services 11) Public Garages with or without Body Repair i2) Sand, Shale, and Clay Mining 13) Day -Care Facilities LAND DIVISIONS Different types of land division are permitted in the Rural Areas District, provided that all applicable health department and subdivision ordinance requirements are met. The following list provides a description of the types of land division that may be inappropriate for the proposed agricultural and forestal districts: 1) Traditional Five Acre Lots This type of land division allows the property owner to create lots that are five acres or greater in size. Representatives of the proposed districts felt that this type of land division has the potential for increasing the overall residential density in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. 2) Agricultural Lots This type of land division allows the property owner to create lots that are five acres or greater in size, provided that they are for agricultural purposes and qualify for land use taxation. Representatives of the proposed districts also felt that this type of land division has the potential for increasing the overall residential density in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Property included in agricultural and forestal districts will automatically qualify for land use taxation if the standard requirements are met. Therefore, the exclusion of this type of land division will not jeopardize the ability to receive land use taxation. NOTE: The Agricultural District Advisory Committee felt that this type of land division should not be excluded from the properties that are within the districts. 3) Rural Preservation Lots This type of land division allows property owners to create lots as small as two acres in size, provided that 40% of the parent tract remains in one parcel. Once again, representatives of the proposed districts felt that this type of land division has the potential for increasing the overall residential density in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. FREDERICK COUNTY ANNUAL REPORT, 1994 Prepared by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development January 1995 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 The following report documents the progress and changes that have occurred within Frederick County. It also describes planning efforts undertook by the staff in 1994. The report is divided into two sections. The first section describes the demographic changes that have occurred over the past decade and attempts to identify trends which will help shed light on the County's future. The second section of this report focuses on the Planning and Development Department's work during the year of 1994. Trends Population Table 1: Frederick County Population (1900 - 1990) % Average Annual % Year Population Change Increase 1900 13,239 - 1910 12,787 -3.4% -.35% 1920 12,461 -2.5% -.26% 1930 13,167 5.7% .55% 1940 14,008 6.4% .62% 1950 17,537 25.2% 2.3% 1960 21,941 25.1% 2.3% The most accurate information available on population growth is compiled every ten years by the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 1 shows the population changes that have occurred in Frederick County since 1900. Although percentage growth during the 1980's was not as great as the previous decade, the County did experience the highest total growth between 1980 and 1990. During 1970 24,107 9,9% 950 this decade, the County increased its 1980 34,150 41.7% 3.5% population by 11,573 persons- 1990 ersons_t990 45,723 33.9% 2.9% Source: US Census Bureau Population will continue to grow in Frederick County. Since 1990, annual population growth has averaged 2.8%. This figure was derived from the current population estimates (shown in Table 2) conducted by the Virginia Center for Public Service. The population in 1993 was estimated at 49,700 and is estimated to reach 50,896 in the year 1995. A more conservative figure is estimated by the Virginia Employment Commission, who projects that the County will reach a population of 55,823 by the year 2000. This figure falls between the low and medium estimates provided in the Comprehensive Plan. Table 2: Current Population Projections and Projections Arginia EmploymentCommission's Population Proiection year 1990 1991* 1992* 1993** Area 2000 2010 Frederick County 45,723 47,700 48,800 49700 D$96 55,823 64,878 Winchester 21,947 22,200 22,400 22,900. 24,113 26,234 Total Area 67,670 69,900 71,200 72,600 3,9..5:..: 79,936 91,112 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Virginia Employment Commission, and the Center for public Service's * Center for Public Service's Final Estimate ** Center for Public Service Provisional Estimate Building Permits Table 3: Building Permits for New Residences (1984 -1994) Year Single Multi- Mobile Total Family family Homes 1994 496 147 149 792 1993 448 202 62 711 1992 381 99 40 520 1991 385 148 61 594 1990 459 262 59 780 1989 682 238 59 979 1988 661 244 75 980 1987 642 242 85 969 1986 463 53 67 583 1985 409 209 68 686 1984 275 76 78 429 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, Jan 1995 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 After falling 33% between 1990 and 1992, the number of building permits issued to construct new homes in Frederick County has been increasing. During the past year, 792 building permits were issued for the construction of new homes in Frederick County. Based on last year's figure, this is an increase of 11.4%. The percent of building permits issued for single family residences remained relatively the same as last year. Table 3 above, describes the number of building permits issued for each residential category. In 1994, 496 building permits were issued for single family residences. This constitutes 61 % of all residential permits issued last year. The number of building permits for multi -family housing fell 2.7% since 1993, while the number of permits for new mobile homes increased 140%. Figure 1 Residential Building Permits Issued between 1984 and 1994 1000 ❑ Mobile Homes ® Multi -family 900 M Single Family 800 :::.. ::: f<.;: .... :: 700 600 500 400 ::A}: {.i+: •. Ar• ::ti, � ;rk ;'>': +.4 v: Mj tgilQ r � 300 ris 00 200- '$�{' ;iii :>?•} 100 100 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 2 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 Family and Household Income According to the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, 14,188 families resided in Frederick County in 1994. The projected median income for these families was estimated to be $40,070 in 1994. This is approximately $5,000 less than the projected median income for Virginia as a whole. Median family income is projected to increase approximately 2% each year through 1996. The projected median household income for 1994 was $36,558. This figure is also expected to increase annually by approximately 2%. By 1996, median household income is expected to be $37,995. Households The average number of persons within a household has declined over the past decade. Based upon the Center of Public Service's population estimate and the number of dwellings this trend will most likely continue to an average of 2.5 per household. The number of dwellings in the County has increased from 12,282 in 1980 to approximately 19,916 in 1992. The stock of housing remains mostly single-family. Table 4: Households and Average Household Size Year Population Households Average Household Size 1960 21.941 6,045 3.63 1970 24,107 8,570 2.81 1980 43,150 11,467 2.98 1990 45,723 16,470 2.78 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and FrecWick County Department of Planning and Development Figure 2 Residential Development 900 0 Urban 800 ® Rural 700 600 500 J ,. .. 400 300 200 rs 100 Q o £ r- :. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 The number of residential lots created in rural and urban areas is determined by the number of subdivision applications (urban) and administrative subdivisions (rural) that were approved. The number of residential lots created in the rural portion of Frederick County declined for the third straight year. In 1994, sixty-nine (69) rural residential lots were created ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 as opposed to 93 lots in 1993. The number of residential lots created in urban areas (residential performance zoning) also decreased from 171 in 1993 to 119 in 1994. There were six (6) master development plans that were approved in 1994. Together these plans propose 398 new single family dwellings and 100 new apartment units Master developments plans were approved for 106 new dwellings in the Residential Performance zoning district during the year compared to 335 in 1993. Of the dwelling receiving master development plan approval, 66 were single family, 28 units were apartments, and 12 were duplexes. The average gross density of the master devlopment plans approved in 1994 was 1.34 dwellings per acre. This is a decrease from the 1993 average gross density of 4.63. Nonresidential Developments in Frederick County Nonresidential development in Frederick County continue to grow. The most recent figures for nonresidential developments in Frederick County are obtained through the University of Virginia's Center for Public Service. According to the most recent data, Frederick County had $6,637,119 worth of nonresidential construction in 1993. This is a decrease of approximately $21 million dollars since 1992. In 1992, $21 million dollars went toward the construction of industrial developments. In 1993, approximately $2.3 million dollars went toward the total of five (5) industrial developments. Construction within the category of Office, Bank, and Professional developments increased in 1993. Frederick County had just over $1 million dollars worth of construction within this category, an increase of over $690,000 dollars. Table 5: Nonresidential Buildings Authorized (1983 - 1993) Year Industrial Office,Bank and Stores & Other Total Professional Mercantile 1983 $6,020.2 $1,383.0 $405.9 $669.1 $8,478.2 1984 $1,788.8 $326.5 $327.0 $2,102.7 $4,545.O 1985 $3,679.0 $151.5 $429.0 $7,622.2 $11,881.7 1986 $2,547.5 $2,163.4 $2.389.0 $2,289.5 $9,389.4 1987 $4,755.0 $1,915.3 $3,409.0 $2,033.1 $12,112.4 1988 $4,256.4 $350.0 $4,339.5 $1,526.6 $10,427.5 1989 $2,222.0 $322.0 $4,758.3 $1,861.8 $9,164.1 1990 $8,278.8 $2,190.6 $949.4 $1,861.8 $11,415.8 1991 $2,800.0 $326.0 $120.0 $1,280.4 $5,775.4 1992 $21,0000 $321.0 $3,800.0 $2,970.0 $28,001.0 1993 $2,309.0 $1,014.5 $2,475.0 $838.6 $6,637.1 Source: Center for Public Service's "Housing Units Authorized in Virginia's Counties, 8 Cities Annual, 1993" 4 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 Employment 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 in Frederick County was 7,282 in 1983. By 1993, the labor force had increased to 11,515. Table 6: Employment by Sector (1983 .1993 Sector 1983 1985 1987 1989 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 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, & Real 46 150 163 434 367 418 Estate Services 806 1,042 1.237 1,416 1,433 1,745 Nonclassifiable 0 15 1 0 0 0 Source: The Virginia Employment Commission, ES202 Data Figure 3, located on the following page, shows the percentage of employees in each industry or sector. 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 have 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% this sector. 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 peak recession in 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 since dropped to the current unemployment rate of 5.4%, below the national rate of 6.5%. 5 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 Figure 3 Percent Employment by Sector Retail Finance Wholesale 9% Services 19% 4% Construction 25% Transportation 16% ManufacturingAgriculture 9% Mining 3% 10% Planning Staff Efforts for 1994 Administrative The Planning and Development staff continues to serve the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Economic Development Commission, and Frederick County citizens. In addition, the staff continues its cooperation with the Stephens City -Frederick County Joint Planning Committee, the Joint Transportation Committee, and the Frederick County -Winchester Battlefield Task Force. The staff provided substanital assistance to public concerning various requests. For instance, in order to serve the public more efficiently, the staff began efforts to streamline the County's site plan review process. The staff is encouraging a "fast-track" approach which will maintain and encourage economic growth. The staff continues to update application packages and supply informational brochures on variances, conditional use permits, developing land in the suburban zoning districts, rezonings, building permits, and dividing rural area land. In addition, the mapping and graphics staff produce an informational newsletter titled "On-line" that describes Geographic Information Systems and other mapping tools. ANNUAL REPORT OF 1994 Violations In 1994, 80 ordinance violations were reported and filed with the Frederick County Planning Department. As of January 1995, 28 of these violations have been resolved, while seven have been turned over to the County Magistrate as criminal complaints. Approximately 15 violations from previous years were resolved this fall. Figure 4 below, shows the amount of active and inactive violations since 1990. Figure 5, on the following page, shows the total and types of violations in each magisterial district. Figure 4 : Active and Inactive Violations --w—vuanux i,uuniy ueparrmenr or rranntng and Development, January 1995 The majority of violations filed are against citizens who store too many inoperable vehicles or those who do not screen them properly. Most of these violations occur within the Back Creek and Shawnee Magisterial Districts. ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 Application Reviews The table below shows the number of applications, plans, and permits that were reviewed in 1994. For instance, twenty-two variances were reviewed and brought before the Board of Zoning Appeals, of which 18 were approved. The number of applications reviewed were fairly consistent with the amount reviewed in 1993. However, there were slightly more rezoning and conditional use permit applications reviewed in 1994. In 1993, two rezoning applications and nine conditional use permits were approved. In 1994, eight rezoning and 12 conditional use permits were approved. Table 7: Development Proposals Reviewed in 1994 Application Submitted Number Reviewed Residential Lots or Units Approved Denied Pending Variances 18 3 1 Site Plans 29 - 6 72 apartment units Rezonings 6 _ 2 Subdivisions 7 - 5 80 lots Conditional Use Permits 10 1 1 Master Development Plans 5 - 3 398 Single Family & 100 apartments Administrative Subdivisions 33 - — wurce. rreoencK county Uepartment of Planning and Development 8 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 rlgure is types of Applications and Permits Reviewed by Planninq Staff 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 3OUrCB: Fredefick Countv Department of Planninn -4 Comprehensive Plan Review M Variances M Site Plans ❑ Rezonings a Subdivisions M CUP's © MDP's The Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee undertook substantial work on the Comprehensive plan. This subcommittee reviews and discusses various requests, studies, and projects that affect development within the County. In addition to the annual review of the County's plan, the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee and Planning staff conducted a study on the Route 7, 11, and 50 Corridors. The Department sponsored two public meetings in September in which people were invited to review a draft of the plan and submit comments. The results of this study were added to the Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by the Planning Commission in January of 1995. Historic Preservation The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) began to discuss the need for developing guidelines for new commercial development in the County's historic areas. The need for commercial development guidelines was prompted by a master development plan that proposed single family dwellings and some commercial businesses located on the land that surrounds Star Fort. Guidelines will be submitted to the HRAB for review in February of 1995. The goal of these guidelines is to assist the developer at Star Fort and other historic property owners, in designing projects that will enhance and preserve the historical elements of the County. ANNUAL REPORT OF 1994 The Historic Plaque Program, which was envisioned as a vehicle for the county to formally acknowledge the historic structures within its boundaries, made great strides in 1994. The plaque has been finalized and an example plaque has been forged. In the latter part of 1994, the HRAB invited the ten State and National Registry properties located in Frederick County to participate in the plaque program. Positive response has been heard from the invited Registry and other historically significant property owners. The HRAB hopes to hold the Historic Plaque Program inauguration in early 1995. Corridor Studies The study on Corridors 7, 11, and 50 was concluded and approved by the Planning Commission in the fall of 1994. The studies which included plans for future uses along portions of these corridors were amended to the Comprehensive Plan. Two public meetings were held in September of 1994 to gain citizens comments and concerns regarding the plan. The plans for each corridor examined land use, appearance, storm water management, and traffic. Highlights from the Corridor Plan include: Route 50 • Constructing connector roads between Routes 522 and 50 in order to relieve the congestion from the existing 522/50/81 interchange. • Designating the area north and west of the Winchester Regional Airport for business and commercial developments. Route 11 • Creating and implementing buffer and setback requirements along Route 11 between Bartonville and Stephens City to create a parkway appearance. • Expanding portions of the corridor to accommodate for four -lane traffic and a bike path. • Encouraging business and industrial development while discouraging a business "strip" appearance. Route 7 • Constructing a collector road that would run north from Route 659 across Route 7 onto the Winchester Mall Property, through the Regency Lakes property and connecting to Route 661. • Providing access to the proposed school site to be located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Route 7 and 660. Stephens City Joint Committee This group of representatives from both the Frederick County and Stephens City Planning Commission was formed in 1991 to insure the coordination of planning efforts in the Stephens City area. This year the group was an active player in the Corridor Plans as it affects Route 11. The committee voiced their concerns of business sprawl along Route 11 and encouraged buffer and setback requirements. 10 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee The Development Review and Subcommittee (DRRS) is responsible for considering issues and proposals that are related to the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. During 1994, the DRRS reviewed the rural area buffer requirements, considered proposals to increase the fee for Conditional Use Permits, and reviewed the uses that are currently permitted within the business and industrial zoning. The DRRS recommended that amendments be passed to allow recreational vehicles in the Floodplain District with performance standards, to allow public libraries in the Residential Performance District, to allow electrical and plumbing supply businesses in the Business General District, and to create new overall gross density and design standards for the Residential Performance District. The DRRS began discussions regarding the impacts associated with the Right To Farm Legislation that will become effective April 1, 1995. The subcommittee also began work on the creation of position statements pertaining to vested rights. These statements are being designed to provide guidance as to what components of development plans are vested. The Subcommittee continues to work on draft amendments for the Corridor Appearance Task Force. New standards for business signs have been drafted. The DRRS will also consider draft amendments concerning landscaping standards. Transportation The Transportation Committee prepared the 1994 Primary Road Improvement Plan and the 1995-1996 Secondary Road Improvement Plan. The committee also prepared a bicycle plan for Winchester and Frederick County. Segments of this network will be complete as existing roads are improved and new roads are constructed. The Transportation Committee reviewed and endorsed the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network Plan which involves land acquisition and the development of an intermodal transportation network. The committee was also involved in the Revenue Sharing Program for Route 642. They reviewed the proposal to improve Macedonia Church Road and endorsed the County's participation in this program to provide adequate funding for construction. The committee also endorsed the proposal to install new signalization along Front Royal Pike at the entrance to Dominion Square and Delco Plaza. They reviewed several proposals which included a new entrance into the Urquart Tract, improvements to Greenwood and Valley Mill Roads, and proposed plans for Corridor H. ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 Capital Improvements The staff continues to utilize the capital improvemtns evaluation system consisting of seven weighted criteria to aid in prioritization of requested projects. The draft of the Capital Improvements Plan has been prepared and will go before the Planning Commission in January of 1995. Rural Community Centers The Alternative Wastewater System Study for the Round Hill and Clearbrook/Brucetown rural community centers was adopted by the Planning Commission in the Fall of 1994. The plan will aid the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee in reviewing current policies toward the two rural community centers. Battlefield Preservation The Battlefield Task Force retained a planning consultant team with the assistance of a grant from the National Park Service. The consulting teams collected and evaluated data about the sites and surrounding routes, produced presentation and publication materials, and conducted the public involvement effort. In continuance of their efforts to purchase the Grim Farm portion of the Kernstown battlefields, Frederick County and the City of Winchester applied successfully for a $1 million ISTEA enhancement grant. The total purchase price will be $2,700,000. The City and County have committed $500,000, leaving $1.2 million to be raised to complete the purchase of the Grim Farm. The option agreement expires at the end of 1995. The Task Force sponsored two Battlefield Vision public forums in the fall of 1994. Participants in these forums defined a vision for the future of the six core battlefield sites that were identified by the Interim Battlefield Action Plan. Together, participants identified issues, concerns, and goals for the preservations of the battlefields. The results of the public involvement are being developed into a Battlefield Protection Plan. This Plan will be completed in 1995 and presented before the Board of Supervisors for a public hearing. Mapping and Graphics The mapping and graphics staff has been pushing to finalize the process of converting the County's digital base maps to a format compatible with the ARC/INFO Geographic Information System. New and updated software and equipment have been ordered to expedite this automated mapping process and will be installed upon moving into the new office space. The conversion to GIS will greatly enhance the planning staff's abilities to analyze and display geographic data. A new graphic technician position was created and filled. The addition of the staff has increased production of regular mapping projects, and helped facilitate mapping conversion. The additional staff will aid the ability to create digital formats for information and data such as soils, topography, flood plains, and environmental resources. This data will be accessible for GIS analysis. 12 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1994 Staff has supplied extensive support to other department members and individual requests from associated departments. Mapping and graphics staff increased support to private citizens through mapping, road naming, and structure numbering. Route 37 In April of 1994, the planning staff received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which was approved by the Federal Highway Administration. The DEIS aided the Study Team in evaluating and presenting the best alternatives for the proposed corridor. Six alternatives were presented as well as a "No Build" alternative. The staff cosponsored a final public meeting in July of 1994 in which public comments regarding the alternatives were recorded. In August, a worksession was conducted for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Each alternative's impact on existing dwellings and businesses, miles traveled, and total cost were summarized and evaluated. In September of 1994 the Board of Supervisors adopted Alternative C as the best choice with the condition that some modifications are studied and implemented. Planning Issues The need to carefully determine the desired location of urban development. The need to identify the impacts of new development areas on the County. The need to insure that business corridors develop in an manner which is attractive, functional, and reflects positively on the community. The need to protect property owners rights. The need to provide key economic development sites along main corridors and railways. The need to streamline the County's review processes in order to encourage and stimulate economic growth. The need to provide citizens with up to date information on the County's ordinance, developing regulations, and special projects. The need to explore and practice methods that encourage public involvement. The need to evaluate and provide appropriate water and sewer service to various areas in and near the Urba.^, Development Area. The need to develop policies, standards, and procedures concerning historic sites and areas. The need for public education efforts in the area of historic preservation. 13 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 199d The need to develop better means to monitor development and the cumulative impacts of development. The need to carefully plan road systems to avoid road safety problems and alleviate congestion. The need to address the appearance and amenities available for development and developed areas. The need to plan a systematic strategy for the preservation and use of battlefields and other historic resources as economic development resources. The need to coordinate planning efforts with the City of Winchester, and the Towns of Stephens City and Middletown. The need to consider the impacts of adding new allowed uses to the zoning district regulations. The need to carefully evaluate capital improvement project requests. The need to provide information and advise to the public and descion makers. 14 002-94 008-94 aid 9 010-94 012-94 �3 94. 014-94 016-94 t717 94 018-94 c�'19w94; 020-94 02 94 022-94 t1�3 94 024-94:' 028-94 #729 94 030-94 032-94 033x94: 034-94 Site Plans Reviewed in Frederick Countv in 1994 r Reqional Health 84 Total Number of Site Plans Approved: 29 Bank 15 APPENDIX A Shawnee 2/3/94 $tnnew.alf 2#25#94:: Stonewall 10/17/94 _........_ Shawnee 2122#94' Back Creek 5/10/94 J.3anesora '. .7 7I94 Gainesboro 5/6/94 f awnee f't12#94 Back Creek 4/18/94 tonewalf 511#94 Stonewall 5/20/94 pequo 6f#94> Opequon 6/17/94 Stnnewell .7 7I94 Back Creek 7/12/94 G3pequo € 131af94 Shawnee 8/9/94 Sfawriee pendlEn.g Stonewall 9/9/94 Stoewal I 12/ 1194 Back Creek 8/12/94 Back Creek €/2C}/94` Back Creek 9/19/94 Sf awnee 't6/2(194 Gainesboro 12/9/94 SM....6 1 r3i24l94I Stonewall pending #�p.egcopendn Stonewall 12/9/94 anesboorfl pending Shawnee 12/9/94 ...... ee pending. Shawnee oendino APPENDICES B & C Rezonings t-ne Name Zoning Acres Magisterial Date Number Number Chane 0 District Approved 001-94 Negely Construction B-3 to B-2 2.5 Stonewall 5/11/94 002-94 Thomas C. Glass B-1 to B-2 2.4 Shawnee 5/11/94 003-94 C.L. Robinson Corp. RA to B-3 16 Back Creek 11/9/94 004-94 Brown Lovett, Jr. RA to M-1 59.7 Stonewall denied 005-94 Burger Busters M-1 to B-2 .84 Stonewall 8/10/94 006-94 Frederick Mall RA to RP 16.08 Shawnee 12/14/94 007-94 Frederick Mall RA to RP 3 Shawnee 12/14/94 008-94 James H. Carroll RP to B-2 2.8 Shawnee pending 009-94 Valley Mill Estates RA to RP 19.35 Shawnee pending Subdivisions File Name Zonin Lots Acres Magisterial Approval Number 0 District 001-93 Briarwood Estate RP 20 9.8 Stonewall pending 002-94 Julia Carper RP 2 3.76 Stonewall 7/13/94 003-94 Ray Robinson, Jr. RP 2 1.41 Back Creek 7/13/94 004-94 Woodside Sub. RP 66 27.83 Opequon 12/12/94 005-94 Garber B-2 4 28.86 Shawnee 10/31/94 006-94 Holtzman 8-2 2 2.69 Stonewall pending 007-94 Harry Stimpson B-2 2 14.92 Opequon pending 008-94 C. Douglas Adams B-2 2 9.55 Shawnee 10/31/94 009-94 Hampton Chase RP 36 10.23 Stonewall penidng 010-94 Negely B-3 2 2.39 Stonewall 12/22/94 011-94 Preston Place RP 9 22.0 Shawnee pending 012-94 Lenoir City Company M-1 2 48.83 Gainesboro 12/9/94 Total Number of Sundivisions Approved: 7 Total Number of RP Sub. Approved: 3 Total Number of Lots Approved: 80 Total RP Lots Approved: 70 Total Area Approved: 122.63 Total RP Area Approved: 33.0 Acres Average Density: 2.12 16 APPENDIX D & E Conditional Use Permits File Name Use Magisterial Action' Number District uui-y4 Uod's Glory Land Church Retreat Back Creek 5/25/94 002-94 Boyer Landscaping Relocation of Landscaping business Shawnee 4/27/94 003-94 Everett S. Riggs Auto repair w/o body repair Opequon 7/6/94 004-94 Greg L. Coverstone Public garage w/o body repair Shawnee 8/10/94 005-94 Mark E. Lowery Public garage w/o body repair Gainesboro 10/12194 006-94 C.J. Funk Fabrication Shop Gainesboro 10/26/94 007-94 Anita P. Farmer Golf Course Shawnee 10/26/94 008-94 Donald E. Cook Automobile garage w/o body repair Stonewall 10/26/94 009-94 Robin Dassler Private dog breeding kennel Gainesboro 12/14/94 010-94 McWhorter Glens Landscaping business Back Creek w/drawn 011-94 Joe Edmiston Dog kennel Back Creek denied 012-94 Mark Anderson Veterinarian hospital and office Stonewall 1/4/95 * Date of action signifies approval Total Number of Conditional Use Permits Approved: 10 Master Development Plans Pile Name Zoning Units Acres District Units/ Acre Approval 001-94 Woodside Estates RP 66 28 OP 2.3 5124/94 002-94 Lake Front Condos RP 3 units 4.16 SH 6.7 12/6/94 28 apts. 003-94 Fieldstone Heights RP 169 102.1 SH 1.6 pending 004-94 Star Fort RP 163 87.78 GB 1.8 Pending 005-94 Garber B-2 - 28.86 SH - 10/25/94 006-94 Rev. Silver Comm. RP 22 - SH - pending 007-94 Saratogo Meadows RA/131 42 19.44 SH 2.2 12/15/94 008-94 Westminster RP/82 6 duplex 47 GB .25 01/5/95 Canterbury* 12 units * Revised Master Development Plan. The acres listed above for Westminster Canterbury do not include the total acres for the existing development. Total Number of MDP's Approved: 5 Total Number of RP MDP's Approved: 3. Total Acres Approved: 127.46 Total Units Approved 106 Total Unite Approved: 148.0Total RP Acres Approved: 79.16 Average Density: 1.34 17 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 /665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director SUBJECT: Resolution of Appreciation for Jim Golladay DATE: January 18, 1995 The Planning Department is in the process of writing a Resolution of Appreciation for Jim Golladay. We would like this to be a collaborative effort with the Planning Commission, since all of you have worked with Jim and have gotten to know him so well over the years. We would appreciate each of you giving us any ideas. We can talk about this at the meeting. We would like to put something together within the next couple weeks, so we will need your input as soon as possible. RWW/rsa 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604