The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 03-01-95 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia MARCH 1, 1995 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Meeting Minutes of January 4, 1995 Meeting Minutes of January 18, 1995 .................... . .... . .. . A 2) Bimonthly Report ........................................... B 3) Committee Reports ........................................ C 4) Citizen Comments ......................................... D 5) Subdivision Application #001-95 of Saratoga Meadows. This property is located on the south side of Senseny Road (Route 657), approximately 150 feet west of the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road (Route 656); and is identified with PIN 55-A-195 and 54 -A -125A (Mr. Miller) ...............................................E PUBLIC HEARINGS 6) Conditional Use Permit #001-95 of Michael Sheffield for a cottage occupation to produce rodents as a pet industry supplier. His pr6perty is located at 4648 Wardensville Grade and is identified with PIN 58-A-29 in the Back Creek District. Directions to this property are as foliows: from Route 50 west of Winchester, turn left onto Route 608, the property is located approximately nine miles on the right. (Mr. Miller) ................................................ F 2 7) Conditional Use Permit #002-95 of Barry D. Myers for a motel\resort (bed & breakfast). His property is located at 473 Vaucluse Road near Stephens City, and is identified with PIN 84-A-53 in the Back Creek District. Directions to this property are as follows: from Stephens City follow State Route 11 South approximately two miles, turn right onto Vaucluse Road (Route 638), proceed on Vaucluse Road for approximately one mile; the location is on the left. (Mr. Miller) ............................................... G 8) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-37, Buffer and Screening Requirements, which would permit the Planning Commission to allow a modified Zoning District Buffer under certain specified conditions on land located within an approved master development plan. (Mr. Tierney) .............................................. H MISCELLANEOUS 9) The 1995 Update to the Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan. (Mr. Wyatt) ............................................... I 10) Request for buffer requirement waiver associated with the First Virginia Square Site Development Plan. (Mr. Wyatt)...............................................J 11) Request Concerning Bimonthly Report (Mr. Miller) ........................... K 12) Other .................................................... L MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on January 4, 1995. PRESENT: Planninp, Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. PlanningStaff taff present• Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; and Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; and Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of November lb, 1994 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DR&RS) - 12/29/94 mtg. Mr. Wyatt reported that the DR&RS discussed a proposed amendment to the M1 District to allow truck rental facilities. He said that they also discussed the need to create a policy statement pertaining to vested rights. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 12/23/94 mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the SA's rate increases will be effective January 1, 1995. She said that bids are being submitted for the Route 522 South Sewer System and the Route 642/Frederick Woods project. Election of Officers and 1995 Meeting Schedule Chairman Golladay announced that he was resigning from the Planning Commission effective .ianuaa 11, 1995. Election of Charles S. DeHaven Ir., Chairman Chairman Golladay declared nominations open for chairman. The nomination of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. for Chairman was made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine. 3 A motion was made by Mrs. Copenhaver, seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. as Chairman of said Commission for the year of 1995. Election of John R. Marker, Vice -Chairman The nomination of John R. Marker for Vice Chairman was made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Romine. A motion was made by Mr. DeHaven, seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect John R. Marker as Vice Chairman of said Commission for year of 1995. Election of Robert W. Watkins, Secretary The nomination of Robert W. Watkins for Secretary was made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Marker. A motion was made by Mr. Marker, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Robert W. Watkins as Secretary for said . Commission for the year of 1995. El 1995 Meeting Schedule Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. and worksessions on the fourth Monday of each month, as needed, at 7:30 p.m. Both regular meetings and worksessions will be held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House at 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia. Reappointment of George L. Romine as liaison to the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously reappoint Mr. George L. Romine as the Planning Commission's liaison to the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission for a three-year term, beginning February 1, 1995. Appreciation of Service of lames W Golladay, jr., as Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr. Richard Dick, Chairman of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, came forward to publicly thank Chairman Golladay for his years of service and leadership on the Planning Commission. 5 -- PUBLIC HEARINGS: Recommended 1995 Update of the Comprehensive Policy Plan for Frederick Count Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Tierney reported that the most significant changes to this year's Comprehensive Plan Update include the addition of a significant amount of information from the recently completed Corridor Report on Routes 50, 7 and 11, and the update of the Eastern Road Plan. Changes to the Eastern Road Plan included the removal and/or the addition of road segments resulting from development in various areas and changes in classification between major and minor collectors. Mr. Tierney said that there was one small addition to the Urban Development Area (UDA) in response to a citizen request. The addition consisted of a 27 acre tract located between Merriman's Lane and Route 37 in response to a citizen request. The Commissioners were pleased with the work done by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee on this year's update of the Comprehensive Plan. They felt this was a "living" document for the community, for landowners, for developers, and government officials. There were no citizen comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 1995 Draft Update of the Comprehensive Policy Plan for Frederick County. CUP #012-94 of Mark Anderson and ,lames Casey for a veterinary hospital/office. This property is located at 667 Walter's Mill Lane (Route 836) and is identified as PIN 44-A-100 in the Stonewall District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Miller said that a veterinary office, clinic, or hospital is a permitted use in the RA Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit He said that this proposed use is to be co -located with the existing dog kennel that is operated by the Andersons under CUP #001-86. Mr. Miller said that since this veterinary service is being 6 operated in conjunction with the kennel, it does not appear that this use will create any additional impacts. Mrs. Cheryl Anderson said that both she and her husband, Mark, owned the building that Dr. Casey's office would be located in. Mrs. Anderson said that Dr. Casey's business will be primarily to serve existing clients that are using their services at the boarding kennel. She said that they predict an increase of two to five additional people using the building on a daily basis. Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Ms. Tina Bragg, the closest neighbor to the Anderson kennel, felt that a precedent was being set to allow continued business growth on this property. Ms. Bragg said that the road was barely wide enough in some places for vehicles to pass and there was inadequate drainage. She said there is constant traffic on the road, sometimes as late as 11:00 and 12:00 p.m. Ms. Bragg said that the veterinary office is currently in operation and she would like to see it closed until a traffic survey could be done. Ms. Bragg added that she felt the Andersons were violating the conditions of their current CUP by allowing dogs outside the kennel. She said that she hears the dogs barking on occasion. Mr. Gregory Roberts, resident of 160 Walter's Mill Lane, said that he was not opposed to the Anderson's business, but he was concerned about the increasing traffic on Walter's Mill Lane. Mr. Roberts said that there are five families that use this road and only his home is on the first mile, which is state maintained. He said the remainder of the road must be maintained by the other four families. Mr. Roberts said that his kitchen is only 30' from the center of the road and he was concerned about how fast traffic went by his home. He said that with the expansion of Mrs. Anderson's business, there will be more customers resulting in increased traffic. Dr. James Casey came forward and said that about 95% of his business will be on animals that are already at the boarding kennel. He said that his facility has been inspected by the Department of Health and the Board of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Casey said that he was a Federally accredited veterinarian. Mr. Wyatt noted that this section of Route 836 has been on the Secondary Road Improvement Plan for two years, but it is not a scheduled project. Chairman Golladay felt that some priorities needed to be set with regard to scheduling of hardsurfacing of roads. He said that there are residents of Frederick Countv who have been putting up with dirt roads for the past 40 years. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of C.U.P. #012-94 of Mark Anderson and James Casey for a veterinarian hospital with office space with the following conditions: 1) Any expansion of facilities to accommodate this use will require revision of the original kennel site plan. 2) Any expansion of buildings or facilities beyond that approved by the original site plan will also require a new or amended C.U.P. OTHER ITEMS INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH MR. LINDEN UNGER REGARDING A POSSIBLE REZONING Mr. Tierney said that Mr. Linden Unger wishes to discuss the possibility of rezoning a parcel of land approximately 1 1/3 acres in size, located on the south side of Route 522 North, from B2 (Business General) to RP (Residential Performance). Mr. Tierney said that this area along Route 522 North is a mixture of business and residential uses and this general area would be expected to gradually transition to a predominantly business corridor. He added that the parcel itself is low and during periods of heavy rain is, at least partially, under water. Mr. Linden Unger said that the adjoining property owner (Parcel #54), Mrs. Beatrice E. Fincham, is interested in buying his property for the sole purpose of enlarging the frontage on her residential property. Commissioners commented that because this narrow strip of property was situated between business zoning on either side, that RP zoning may not be appropriate. They felt more inclined to view RA as the proper zoning, to match Mrs. Fincham's existing property. The Commissioners had questions regarding the zoning and size of adjacent parcels. Since the answers to these questions were uncertain,'the Commissioners requested the staff and applicant to research the matter and come back to the Commission. S INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LINDWOOD RITTER RE UEST FOR SEWER EXTENSION. Mr. Lindwood Ritter came forward and requested that the Commission table his discussion until the next meeting. Mr. Ritter said that he passed some information to Mr. Robert Sager and Mr. Sager has not yet been able to respond. The Commission agreed to table the discussion item until a later time. INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING A POSSIBLE REZONING ON ROUTE 7 Mr. Tierney said that Mr. John Fauler is interested in rezoning approximately three acres from B2 (Business General) to B3 (Industrial Transition) for the purpose of establishing a mobile home sales business. He said that this parcel is located in front of the recently renovated Franklin Mobile Home Park, Mr. John Fauler said that this would be a manufactured housing sales center and he would have two display units plus an office on the property. Mr. Fauler said that he would have an access directly on Route 7, rather than use Eckard's Circle. Commissioners were concerned about the storage of trailers on the site, the amount of tractor/trailer traffic, and the storage of construction/erection equipment on the site. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 1995-1996 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (C.I.P) Mr. Tierney said that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs. Subcommittee (CP&PS) finalized their recommendation for the 1995-1996 C.I.P. at their meeting of December 12, 1994. He said that the C.I.P. includes 28 projects at a cost of roughly $70 million, which includes debt service on all projects except the County Office Complex. Mr. Tierney said that this total does not include Sanitation Authority or landfill projects, since they are fee -sustained. Mr. Tierney said that in light of recent developments with the School Board, some of the information in the C.I.P. is likely to change. He said that. Mr. Thomas Malcolm and Mr. Sullivan of the School Board were present to elaborate on those proposed changes. 9 Mr. Malcolm came forward and stated that the three basic changes to their plan included 1) the conversion of the Kline building from the school board's offices to an elementary school; 2) instead of adding air conditioning to Stonewall school, they are proposing a new facility at the same location; and 3) instead of an addition to the building and grounds facility, they are proposing the complete relocation of that facility to Route 7. Mr. Malcolm next proceeded to discuss in detail each of the items on the Schools Board's revised plan. A couple items of concern were raised by the Planning Commission with regards to the new Stonewall Elementary School. Commission members pointed out that the entire Route 11 corridor along that area is under constant pressure for rezonings to business and frequently, to industrial uses. Commission members felt that parents of Stonewall School children and the School Board officials needed to be aware that their school will be in the middle of an industrial area. Commissioners also asked that School Board officials look into alternate disposal methods for Stonewall School besides a septic system. It was noted that this was a growing area with a lot of wells and a failing septic system could cause problems with these surrounding wells. The staff noted that this C.I.P. would be sent back to the CP&PS for their meeting on January 9 and their recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their next meeting on January 18. No action was needed by the Commission at this time. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE AGRICULTRUAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT Mr. Wyatt said that on May 17, 1994, property owners along Double Church Road (Route 641) and Refuge Church Road (Route 639) met with Extension Agent, Gary DeOms and the Planning staff to begin the process necessary to create a new agricultural and forestal district in Frederick County. Mr. Wyatt said that one of the criteria for this district is that a core area of at least 200 acres is needed. He said that since the original meeting, some landowners withdrew their application. He said that some parcels that remained were not directly contiguous to the core area, but were within a one mile radius. Mr. Wyatt said that these properties are referred to as "satellite districts" and can become a part of the core area. He said that upon receiving the final tally of properties, it was decided that there was a need to create two separate districts: The Double Church District and the Refuge Church District. Mr. Wyatt said that the Agricultural and Forestal District Committee suggested that when this goes to public hearing, it should be taken with certain statements 10 of intent. One being that some uses requiring a C.U.P. not be permitted within this district, and secondly, that the five -acre subdivision provision should not apply to this district. Mr. Wyatt said that the committee also felt that the UDA boundary line may need to be adjusted during the 1995 update of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners wanted the staff and the committee to make sure that all of the property owners involved fully understood the ramifications of setting aside their land for this district for a five-year period. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 1995 ISTEA ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL Mr. Wyatt presented a map of the proposed Civil War Battlefield Tour Network. Mr. Wyatt said that in order to create this network, the acquisition of property is necessary and the purchase of the Grim Farm has become the first priority. He said that last year, Frederick County and Winchester submitted a joint ISTEA application and was awarded $1 million towards the purchase price. Mr. Wyatt said that staff is updating the application again this year and the purpose is to attempt to obtain additional funding for the Grim farm. The option to purchase the Grim Farm, which expires December 1, 1996, provides a two-year window to secure the financing necessary to acquire the site. Mr. Wyatt said that he feels it is very important for the state to be able to define the "tour network" and the improvements that are envisioned within that network. Mr. Wyatt said that with that in mind, although it is not required by law, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for their public hearing on January 11, 1995. Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Dehaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the proposed Civil War Battlefield Tour Network and does hereby endorse the 1995 ISTEA Enhancement Proposal Grant Application. ISSUES AND STRATEGIES FROM THE 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Mr. Watkins presented a list of issues and strategies that were discussed at the Planning Commissions 1994 retreat. Mr. Watkins said that the staff will work on ways to bring about the strategies and issues discussed. OTHER: Mr. Wyatt said the DR&RS entertained a request at their last meeting from Penske Truck Leasing Company. He said that they are interested in renting space on MI property to establish a truck leasing and rental facility in Frederick County. He said that it was determined that this use was not permitted in the M1 District. (It is permitted in 133 and M2 Districts). Mr. Wyatt said that it was the feeling of the DR&RS that it may be appropriate to have this use in the M1 District provided there are reasonable performance standards associated with the use. The Planning Commission instructed the staff to proceed with advertisement of the amendment for public hearing. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on January 1$, 1995. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. Planning Staff resent: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BIMONTHLY REPORT information. Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans .& Programs Subcommittee - 1/9/95 Mt2. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPS reviewed the new C1P submission by the School Board, which will come before the Planning Commission at this meeting. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the CPPS also began discussions of the rural community centers. She said that they will start with Round Hill because of the sewer problems there. Vd Sanitation Authority - 1/18/95 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Parkins Mill sewage treatment plant expansion is progressing nicely because of the good weather. She said that construction on residential lots has been dropping and new sewer connections were down. ----------- Winchester-City Planning_ Commission Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the Winchester City Planning Commission enforced, on the basis of complaint, a violation of the City's outdoor storage prohibition against Sheetz. He said that Sheetz came back with an amendment to the ordinance which would very narrowly allow any business in Winchester with a permanent canopy attached to their building to be able to sell products outside. He said that the City Planning Commission's action was to vote 6-0 against the amendment, however, this will go to Council. Mr. DiBenedetto said that the other item considered was an amendment regarding nonconforming uses. Mr. DiBenedetto said that there is a 10% limitation on the amount a person can spend to repair and do renovations on nonconforming use structures. He said that the City Planning Commission has developed a mechanism to allow that to go up to 25 %, if the 10% creates a particular hardship. He said that this was passed 3-2, but will need to go to Council. Mr. DiBenedetto said that this will make it easier to undertake some of the rezonings that are now being considered. He said that opposition usually has to do with restrictions placed on nonconforming properties. Mr. DiBenedetto said that Mr. James Barnett has completed his maximum allowable two terms on the Planning Commission. He said that Mr. William Bayliss has been elected as the new Planning Commission Chairman. He said that two other new members were appointed, Mr. George Ferguson and Mr. William Brown. Mr. DiBenedetto added that the City Planning Commission elected new liaisons and that he will be liaison to the County's Planning Commission for another year. DISCUSSION REGARDING REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Mr. Tierney said that the 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan was presented to the Planning Commission on January 4, 1995 and at that time, the School Board presented changes to their project requests. Mr. Tierney said that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee re-evaluated and finalized their recommendations for the 1995-96 CIP at their 3 meeting of January 9, 1995. He then reviewed the School Board changes with the Commission. Mr. Tierney said that in terms of how the School Board changes effect priorities, none of the other agency projects were changed. Mr. Morris asked if there was a time limitation on using the ISTEA grant money for the bicycle path. Mr. Watkins believed the funds needed to be expended within five years from the time a contract is executed with VDOT. Commissioners also had questions on why the new County Administration building was not listed on the plan. The staff said they would look into the matter, but felt that the funds may have been allocated last year and, therefore, the project would not be listed on this year's plan. Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward. Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles presented information to the Commission that he compiled on elementary school enrollment figures, on recently built new schools and their capacities, and capacities and costs projected for the proposed new schools. Mr. Stiles had several concerns with the School Board's CIP proposal: according to his calculations, the elementary school enrollment figures for the last five years remained flat and do not justify building three new elementary schools for children that do not exist; he was concerned that when Indian Hollow, Middletown, and Armel schools were built, their design capacity was for 635 students, but the current capacity is now 550; he was opposed to closing the Gainesboro and Robinson schools when the parents, students, and children liked the schools and information has shown that Robinson is the top ranked school in Frederick County on standardized test scores; he was concerned about the debt service that the county was undertaking with the proposed new County Administration building and three new elementary schools and the resulting tax rates and operating costs; and, he was concerned that the $17 million cost to build three new schools may well lead to no school in the Clearbrook area for a number of years. Mr. Stiles requested the Planning Commission to return the School Board portion of the CIP back to the School Board and ask them to look at their proposal again. Mr. Michael Weber, a resident of Stonewall District, felt it was a mistake to convert the current administrative school building back into classrooms when the taxpayers paid to renovate that building into administrative offices. Mr. Weber felt the school administration building was very accessible where it was now located versus moving it to downtown Winchester. Mr. Weber said that he disagreed with the growth figures presented by Mr. Stiles and felt they were not up-to-date. He felt that the growth rate the county was experiencing would result in increased numbers of children and that the County was going to need new facilities. 4 Mr. Weber said that he was in favor of building a new school in Stonewall, as opposed to renovating the old school. He said that according to the architect, if the school is renovated, it will last only another 15 years and then the problem will be back. He said that the facilities at Stonewall are archaic and do not meet the needs of students in our day and time. Mr. Weber felt that with the growth that is occurring on Route 7, there would definitely be a need for a new school in that location. Mr. Weber said he felt that the School Board made a wise decision by planning to build a new school on Route 7 and moving the students from Stonewall to Route 7 while the new Stonewall facility was being built. Mr. Weber felt the modular units the schools were using were in terrible condition and were not the answer to the problem. Mr. Weber added that a lot of the reduction in capacity that Mr. Stiles referred to was due to state mandates that the county needed to abide by. Mr. Richard Ruckman, a Stonewall District resident, stated that he was in favor of a new Stonewall elementary school. Mr. Ruckman said a study of the school was done by architects, Mills, Oliver & Webb and proposals were narrowed down to building a new school or renovating the existing one. He said that adding 20,000 additional square feet and renovating the existing school would cost just shy of $4 million and the cost for a new school would be $5.1 million. He said that many problems exist with the existing school, ranging from termite infestation to poor wiring, to handicapped accessibility problems, etc. Mr. Ruckman said that this information was presented to the School Board and the public and it was felt that it would be more cost effective in the long run to build a new school. Mr. Jack Drumheller, stated that he thought Mr. Stiles was attempting to oversimplify a situation that needs a lot of attention and is going to cost money. Mr. Drumheller said that new schools are needed at both Route 7 and Stonewall. He felt that the School Board has worked hard to develop this plan and he asked that the Planning Commission support the School Board's plan. Mr. Morris brought everyone's attention to the fact that the Commission is under a lot of pressure to rezone properties for business use all along the Route 11 corridor, in the area of the new Stonewall school. He said that the only reason some of these rezonings have not yet been done is that the sewer line has not yet been run to that point. Mr. Morris said that once this occurs, a tremendous amount of business growth will occur along that corridor. Mr. Morris asked those persons present if they had considered future impacts of business zoning on the proposed school. He said that the school may be located right in the middle of a prime industrial route with school buses competing with tractor trailers and other heavy equipment on Route 11. Mr. Sager commented that there seemed to be some apprehension concerning Stonewall school that the septic systern would not support the number of seats proposed. Mr. Sager said that he did not want the septic issue to prevent the school from being built. He said that every effort needs to be made to make sure that a system can be developed that will support 550, even if it is one of the new aerobic systems. Mr. Sager said that it would not be cost 5 effective to build a school with less capacity than that. Mr. Watkins said that the Planning Commission recently sponsored a sewer study for the Clearbrook area and he felt a good recommendation would be that the School Board look at their options and particularly, look at some of the options recommended in the study, which did not involve running central sewer from the south. There next ensued a discussion among the Planning Commissioners and numerous issues were raised. One of the main issues discussed was the cost involved with the CIP, especially for School Board projects. They felt that the combined cost of the proposed new County Administration Building and the School Board projects were much higher than what the County could afford. Several points were made that: In two to three years, the debt service on the proposed projects will almost equal the capital expenditure and would result in a large real estate tax increase; that maybe development was not paying its way for public facilities and that the County may be allowing too much growth; there were concerns with the Kline renovation and that it may be less expensive not to move the School Board offices into town; and finally, the question of whether the Planning Commission should become involved in the "expense" of the CIP was also raised. While some of the Commissioners felt it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to be concerned with the "expense" of the CIP, others felt the Commission's role should be more from a conceptual point of view and that the financial aspects should be the Board of Supervisors' responsibility. A motion was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine to approve the Capital Improvements Plan. This motion was approved by majority vote, but with concerns to be forwarded to the Board. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby endorse the 1995-1996 Capital Improvements Plan with reservations concerning the projected cost of the CIP and recommends that the Board of Supervisors thoroughly review the costs for the School Board proposals. The vote was as follows: YES (TO ENDORSE CIP)• Thomas, Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Stone NO: Shickle, Morris, Light A INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH RALPH GREGORY REGARDING A B2 ZONED PARCEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE II SOUTH Mr. Tierney said that Mr. Ralph Gregory and his partners have a prospective purchaser for a lot near the rear (western portion) of their B2 business park which located on the west side of Route 11, just south of the Route 37 interchange. Mr. Tierney said that the surrounding property is all zoned B2, except to the west which remains RA. Mr. Tierney said that the prospective user requires B3 zoning and desires visibility from Route 11. He explained that if this parcel is rezoned to B3, a category "B" buffer would be required where the parcel adjoins B2 zoning. Mr. Tierney said that because the user wants to be visible from Route 11, they do not wish to put in a visual screen along the eastern edge of the site. He said that they could avoid this by placing a 200' distance buffer along the eastern side of the site, however, the owners feel this is excessive. Mr. Tierney said that the staff or Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive the buffer requirements; however, there is the possibility of amending the ordinance, which would give the Planning Commission the leeway to reduce the buffer under certain circumstances. Mr. Ralph Gregory, the owner of the business park in question, said that he put in buffers and setbacks according to the Code, but because of the slope of his land, he was told that it did not meet the "intent" of the Code. Mr. Gregory said that he was not willing to give up 200' of property that he was being taxed on for a setback. Mr. Gregory said that this lot was within a designated business park and he felt there should be some flexibility. The Commission discussed the situation and felt that if granted, a reduction/waiver would have to be tied to a particular site plan, so that if another use came in, the reduction/ waiver would not transfer to the new use. They also felt that an amendment would have to involve the applicant submitting a proposal to modifying the screening that would be acceptable to the Commission. Members of the Commission felt that within an approved master development plan area, some flexibility on buffers and screening should be permitted. The Commission discussed sending this matter to the DR&RS; however, in the essence of time, Mr. Light moved that the Planning Commission grant the staff administrative authority to draft a proposed amendment to allow a buffer and screening reduction waiver which would be site plan controlled and to bring the proposal back before the Commission at their next meeting. This motion was seconded by Mr. Marker and passed by the following majority vote: YES TO APPROVE): Shickle, Morris, Romine, Wilson, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Stone NO: Thomas, DeHaven 7 INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH MR. BRUCE WELCH REGARDING A PROPOSED VETERINARY HOSPITAL ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 647 Mr. Tierney said that Dr. Bruce Welch, DVM, was present to discuss the establishment of a veterinary hospital on the east side of Route 647. He said that the property where Dr. Welch would like to locate is currently zoned RP (Residential Performance), however, B2 (Business General) zoning would be required. He said that the parcel is surrounded on three sides by RP Zoning and B2 Zoning is across Aylor Road. Dr. Bruce Welch, DVM, came forward and described what he proposed for the property. Dr. Welch said that the property is located at 689 Aylor Road (Rt. 647) near Stephens City and has an existing 1 1/2 story dwelling. He stated that he wished to construct a single - story 50-60' X 40-50' animal hospital beside the existing house. Dr. Welch said that he had no intentions of offering boarding or kennel services and that he would be willing to offer proffers to prohibit objectionable uses. Mr. Sager said that he spoke with some of the neighbors and they felt it might be better to convert the existing house to the veterinary hospital rather than building a new structure. Mr. Sager said that he had no objections to a veterinary office at this location. He said the property is located on a busy road. Mr. Thomas pointed out that this property was very narrow and that if Dr. Welch built a house towards the rear of the property, it would be landlocked. Mr. Thomas felt that the proffers submitted should apply to the entire parcel, not just the part of the lot with the veterinary clinic. Mr. Morris said that he felt that veterinary offices could fit well into residential areas because they were a community -related, transitional -type business. No other outstanding areas of concern were raised by the Commissioners. No action was needed at this time. ADJOURNMENT P. in. I-V No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 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: February 16, 1995 (1) Rezonin s Pending: dates are submittal dates Federal Express 01/25/95 James Carroll 10/07/94 Shaw RP to B2 Valley Mill Estates 11/10/94 Shaw RA to RP (2) Conditional Use Permits Pending: dates are submittal dates Michael & Rebecca Pet Industry Supplier Sheffield 02/01/95 BcCk (Produce Rodents) Barry & Shelia Myers 02/01/95 BcCk Bed & Breakfast (3) Conditional Use Permits A roved: dates are approval dates Mark Anderson & Veterinarian James Casey 01/25/95 Ston hospital/office (4) Site Plans Pendin dates are submittal dates Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. Grace Brethren Church Flex Tech Lake Centre Westminster Canterbury Bank of Clarke Co. Lakeview Garden Apartments Holiday Inn Express Virginia Square 09/12/89 Opeq 06/08/90 Shaw 10/25/90 Ston 05/15/91 Shaw 11/16/94 Gaines 12/16/94 Shaw 01/05/95 Shaw. 02/16/95 Opeq 02/08/95 Gain Trmt.facil Church Lgt. Industrial Townhouses Duplex Housing New Bank Branch Apartments Motel Burger King/Amoco (5) Site Plans Approved: dates are approval dates Federal Express 01/25/95 Shaw Warehouse Garber (Price Club) 02/06/95 Shaw Retail Commercial Toan & Associates 02/15/95 Ston Office/Warehousing 2 (6) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Briarwood Est. 01/04/94 Ston Saratoga Meadows 01/23/95 Shaw (7) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C or BOS approval dates Abrams Point, Phase I 06/13/90 Shaw Lake Centre 06/19/91 Shaw Fredericktowne Est., Sec 9 10/06/93 Opeq Harry Stimpson 10/26/94 Opeq (8) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Fieldstone Heights 04/25/94 Ston (9) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval dates Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 BaCk James R. Wilkins III 04/14/93 Shaw Star Fort 09/14/94 Gain 1E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #74 Jan. 15-31 1. Transportation Bob Watkins, Tim Youmans, Mark Lemasters, Clay Grant, and Evan Wyatt prepared the 1995 ISTEA Enhancement Program Grant Application. This $1,000,000 grant request is for additional money needed to purchase the Grim Farm. Bob Watkins met with Transportation Commissioner, Dr. Daphyne Thomas and discussed transportation needs. 2. CDBG(Community Development Block Grano Kris Tierney met with John Riley, Ken Poore of Poore and Associates (consultants working on the CDB Grant for the County), the architects working with Poore and Associates, and a representative of the Rose Foundation to discuss the status of the grant work. Kris Tierney attended the public hearing held in the County Court House to receive input from county residents concerning the need for residential housing for the mentally handicapped. No residents came forward to voice opinions. 3. Battlefield Preservation Issues Bob Watkins, Mark Lemasters, and Eric Lawrence met with the Battlefield Task Force. Work continued on preparing the final battlefield plan. 9. Plan Reviews Approvalsl..and Site Inspections: Evan Wyatt conducted site inspections for the Minute Wok on Millwood Pike, and the Lakeside Apartments on Timberlake Terrace. Eric Lawrence conducted the final review of the site plan for the Kraft General Foods addition. This site plan was subsequently approved. The site plan for a Federal Express facility in the AeroCenter Business Park was also approved. S. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee DRRS The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) met on January 26, 1995. The DRRS discussed the potential for creating specific sign regulations for properties along interstate interchange areas. The DRRS directed staff to report all comments, concerns, and recommendations to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 6. Meetings Bob Watkins and Kris Tierney met with Tom Baker and Ralph Gregory to discuss a development proposal. On January 17, Bob Watkins and Kris Tierney met with Chuck Maddox, Ralph Gregory and Tom Baker to discuss the possibilities for an ordinance amendment to accommodate a proposed user within the RT&T Business park. An informal discussion of this issue has been held at the Planning Commission and Kris is drafting an amendment to the zoning district buffer requirements that would allow the Planning Commission to reduce the requirements under certain specified conditions. Evan Wyatt met with Steve Terry of PHR&A to discuss a proposed office addition to the Seaward International site. Eric Lawrence met with Steve Gyurisin of G.W. Clifford concerning a revised site plan for Country Park Plaza. F&M Bank is pursuing the site for a branch bank with two drive-in tellers. 7. Departmental Jean Moore and Evan Wyatt prepared a chart for the Economic Development Commission that describes the Frederick County site plan streamlining process. Members of the planning staff participated in moving the Planning and Development office location to the fourth floor of the former Courthouse Associates Building from Friday, January 20 through Sunday, January 22. 8. other Bob Watkins participated in a group working on an RFP for office construction and assisted in various ways. 1E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT-- ACTIVITY REPORT #75 (Feb. 1-15) 1. Transportation Bob Watkins and Eric Lawrence attended a VDOT seminar in Richmond on the Winchester Area Transportation Study. The construction drawings for the Route 642 realignment project were approved by the engineering division of VDOT. This clears the way finally for the right-of-way acquisition to begin. 2. Battlefield Preservation Issues Bob Watkins and Mark Lemasters met with representatives of Land and Community Associates, the battlefield consultant, to discuss plan issues. 3. Plan Reviews,.Approvals, and Site Inspections: Jean Moore conducted a preliminary review of the Holiday Inn Express site plan to be located on Town Run Lane. Jean Moore met with Steve Gyurisin and Beau Carlyle to conduct a site inspection and to discuss site improvements for Carlyle and Anderson, Inc. Evan Wyatt reviewed the following site plans: A) A proposed addition to the Fort Collier Lease Building #1 located in the Fort Collier Industrial Park. B) A new corporate hanger/office building at the Winchester Regional Airport. C) Revisions to the Lake View Apartment site plan located at the intersection of Macedonia Church Road and Chinkapin Drive. D) Revisions to the Toan & Associates site plan for the new Kraft Warehouse located in the Stonewall Industrial Park. E) Revisions to the proposed Bank of Clarke County site plan located on Senseny Road. F) Revisions to the First Virginia Square site plan located adjacent to Crown Cork & Seal on Martinsburg Pike. Evan Wyatt approved the following site plans: A) The site plan for the Price Club located on Front Royal Pike. B) The site plan for Toan & Associates new Kraft Warehouse. Evan Wyatt conducted the following site inspections: A) Abundant Life Christian Center on Aylor Road. B) Taco Bell Restaurant on Welltown Road. C) Carlyle & Anderson on Berryville Pike. 4. Development Review & Reaulations Subcommittee (DRRS) The DRRS met on January 26, 1995. The essence of their discussion focused on sign height and square footage along interstate interchange areas. The DRRS made several recommendations that were reported to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors during their meetings in February. 5. Meetings Eric Lawrence and Jean Moore met with representatives of the Planners Network in the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission. Discussions involved preparations for the "Northern Shenandoah Valley Vision Forum." Eric Lawrence and Kris Tierney met with Peter Benton, a historic preservation consultant for the Town of Stephens City, to discuss the County's proposed land use around Stephens City. Kris Tierney met with a realtor to discuss the subdivision potential for a tract of RA (Rural Areas) land. Kris met with John Lewis to discuss the impact report he is preparing for a rezoning application. There are a number of concerns which arose regarding our Flood Plain regulations. As a result of this discussion, Kris is reviewing our Flood Plain Regulations in hopes of clarifying a number of confusing aspects. Kris met with a relator to discuss a rezoning application which is being prepared for an RA parcel fronting on Route 522 in Albin. Kris met with Brian Welch, a veterinarian who had gone to the Planning Commission informally to discuss the possibility of rezoning a parcel on Route 647 from RP to B2 to establish a veterinary clinic. Dr. Welch is now considering a request to the County to consider an ordinance amendment that would permit such clinics in the RP zone with a conditional use permit. Jean Moore met with Steve Gyurisin to discuss the Holiday Inn Express site plan. Wayne Miller and Jean Moore met with Bob Mitchell, Attorney, to discuss the Nerangis case filed against the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals. Evan Wyatt met with Tim Painter to proposals for an addition to the Mt. View Church of Christ on Valley Pike, and for the creation of a Tastee Freeze Restaurant at the location of the former Jumpin' J Restaurant on Martinsburg Pike. Evan Wyatt met with Buddy Strawderman to discuss a proposed addition to the Carrol Construction site off of Martinsburg Pike. Evan Wyatt met with Jesse Richardson to continue work on the development of performance standards that are associated with the Right To Farm Legislation. These standards will be reviewed by various committees and forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for review in the Spring. 6. GIS/Mapping New software and upgrades are increasing capability and speed in conversion of data and production. A connection has been established through the network that will allow the quick production of 8 1/2 X 11 laser plots, such as locations maps and individual parcel maps, etc. to be produced from AutoCAD to the laser printer. The GIS/Mapping staff is assisting the Fire and Rescue Department in updating the street guide books. 7. Departmental The Planning Department hosted an open house for the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission for the purpose of honoring Jim Golladay, Jr. for his twenty years of service to Frederick County. Jean Moore and Evan Wyatt met with representatives of review agencies to discuss streamlining the County's review process and to present revised checklists for the site plan review application. Jean Moore is assisting Bob Watkins and Ed Strawsnyder in recording and calculating office space needs projections for the new County office building. Evan Wyatt and Jean Moore provided June Wilmot with information needed for a meeting in Richmond with a prospective business client. 8. Other Jean Moore revised and finalized the Frederick County Annual Report for 1994. Evan Wyatt assisted students from Shenandoah University with requested information regarding current and future development issues associated with Frederick County. PC REVIEW: 03/01/95 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 001-95 SARATOGA MEADOWS LOCATION: The property is located on the south side of Senseny Road (Route 657), approximately 150 feet west of the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road (Route 656) . MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT• PROPERTY ID NUMBER: Shawnee 55-A-195 and 54 -A -125A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: PIN 55-A-195: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Current Land Use: vacant PIN 54 -A -125A: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Current Land Use: residential. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North RP & B2 Country Park Subdivision & County Park Plaza South RP Greenwood Heights Subdivision (Section III) East RP Single Family Residential Lots West RA Agricultural PROPOSED USE: 42 single family detached traditional housing units on minimum building lots of 15,000 square feet REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: See attached comment dated January 18, 1995 SANITATION AUTHORITY: Approved as submitted. INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT: Buildings shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993. Site plan needed for lot 27, 28, 37, 38 will need to show lowest floor elevation. FIRE MARSHAL: Plans Approved. Post street name signage prior to home construction. COUNTY ENGINEER: See attached comments dated December 2, 1994 PLANNING AND ZONING: Project History - The two parcels that comprise the proposed Saratoga Meadows Subdivision were originally zoned RA, Rural Areas District. An application was filed by the Frederick Mall Land Trust Corporation for the purpose of rezoning these parcels from RA to RP, Residential Performance District. The Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning of the two parcels on December 14, 1994. The approved rezoning included proffers which offered $4,148 per building lot which would be payable when the building permit was issued. This money was offered to offset the capital costs associated with public school, regional parks, and emergency services. A Master Development Plan was subsequently approved for the Saratoga Meadows Subdivision on December 15, 1994. This plan was approved for 42 single family detached traditional lots with minimum lot sizes of 15,000 square feet. This plan addressed the entrance concerns through the alignment with County Park Drive (Route 1243), and the storm water management concerns through the creation of two on-site storm water management facilities that would be designed per the County Engineers specifications. Subdivision Plan Comments - This proposed subdivision meets all zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements, and is in conformance with the approved master plan. There are several platted lots in this subdivision that will .have long and narrow or very restrictive building footprints available. More specifically, these would include lots 10, 11, 24 and 27. This is caused by the shape and location of the lots. Although we cannot prevent the platting of these lots, it is important to point out this deficiency because these lots usually become a problem and beg for variances. Staff concurs with the County Engineer proposed restrictions and requirements pertaining to basement restrictions and fill recommendations. Also, a drainage easement plat across the Riggleman property will be required prior to final administrative approval of this development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MARCH 1, 1995 MTG: Approval provided that all review agency requirements are adequately addressed prior to final administrative approval. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER Mr. Keith H. Burr C/O Greenway, Inc. 970 Baker Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Keith: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE P.O. BOX 278 EDINBURG. 22824-0278 January 18, 1995 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P.E. RESIDENT ENGINEER TE LE 17031984 5600 FAX (7031984-5607 Ref: Saratoga Meadows Subd. Route 657 Frederick County As requested we have reviewed the above referenced project's site plan dated October 30, 1994. Our recommendations may be found on the enclosed plans marked in red and as follows: 1. Center line stations will need to be shown on Plan Sheet #1. 2. All intersection radii should be a minimum 50'. 3. The 162' radius center line curve on Steeplechase Lane will need to be increased to a minimum 260' by shifting the road toward Lot 18. 4. A minimum 30' vertical curve is needed at the sag of Saratoga Drive at Station 00+38+. 5. A ditch with 20' straight drainage easement is needed through the Riggleman Lot. The 18" pipe under Route 656 may need to be upgraded depending on pre and post - development flows to this pipe. The stormwater management calculations discuss a 17.95 acre pre and post-drainage area. It appears however areas such as Lots 30 through 33 are being diverted to Stormwater Management Basin "B" and then to the 18" pipe. Therefore, calculations need to discuss these smaller subareas. Additional information will need to be shown on the plans and discussed in the drainage calculations. We recommend ditch "B" be eliminated if possible to reduce the amount of acres -diverted. 6. Ditch "B" and "G" and ditch "A" and "E" should be adjusted and additional easements provided to ease the transitions. 7. We suggest you explore eliminating ditch "A" and keep drainage flowing through Lot 12 and merge with ditch "C" at Lot 24/25. As shown, ditch A reroutes water around the back of Lots 25 through 27 and results in a flat bottom ditch with future houses down slope from the ditch. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. Keith H. Burr Ref: Saratoga Meadows January 18, 1995 Page 2 8. The proposed detention basins will need to be totally enclosed within easements_ Also, additional detail will need to be provided on the berm designs. 9. To remain consistent, all storm sewer and cross pipes within the development will need to be reinforced concrete. 10. Additional information is needed for Structure #F-1 and its downstream pipe. 11. Toe ditches with details are needed around Stirrup Cup Circle. 12. A 10' drainage easement is needed along Lot 1. 13. The existing shoulder and ditch along the south side of Route 657 from Saratoga Drive to the east end of the subdivision (SWM Basin "A") will need to be reconstructed. A minimum 8' shoulder and minimum 4' ditch will be required. As shown, the 18" pipe under Saratoga Drive has insufficient cover. The pipe and outfall ditch need to be lowered. A typical section of the proposed shoulder and ditch tieing into the existing Route 657 pavement edge needs to be shown. Also, a detail is needed of the two pipes in relation to the right-of-way line at the outfall of basin "A". 14. The typical section ditch slope will need to be revised to 3:1. 15. Underdrains will need to be provided at all sags in grade. 16. The pavement design for all internal streets will need to be a minimum 8" 21-B Aggregate with a prime and double seal surface treatment. The pavement design of the Route 657 right turn lane and taper and Saratoga Drive connection to approximate Station 0+70 should match the existing Route 657 pavement design with a minimum 8" of 21-B Aggregate and 2" of Type SM -2A Asphalt Concrete provided. A typical section of the proposed right turn lane and taper will be required. 17. Access to Lots 38 and 42 will be required from internal streets rather than directly from Route 657. Also, the entrance serving the existing dwelling on Lot 1 will need to be upgraded to Standard PE -1 Specifications or an entrance provided onto Saratoga Drive. 18. Additional detail of the proposed waterline crossing within the Route 657 right-of-way will geed to be provided. 19. Standard VDOT stop signs will be required at all appropriate locations. Mr. Keith H. Burr Ref: Saratoga Meadows January 18, 1995 Page 3 20. Sight distance, reference and speed limit along Route 657 will need to be incorporated into the plan. Please revise and resubmit three (3) copies for further review. Should any changes be deemed necessary, please design them to meet or exceed the above recommendations. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer 16. 64-'z�- By-: Robert B. Childress Trans. Permits & Subdivision Specialist Supervisor RBC/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. T. L. Jackson Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. H. E. Strawsnyder I COUNTY of 1~RLDERIch Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., RE Director of Public Work: 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floo, 703/665 -564 - December 2, 1994 Mr. H. Bruce Edens, C.L.S. Greenway, Inc. 970 Baker Lane Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Subdivision Plans for Saratoga Meadows Frederick County, Virginia Dear Bruce: We have completed our review of the proposed subdivision plans for Saratoga Meadows and offer the following comments: 1) Provide an erosion and sediment control plan and narrative. 2) Sheet 1 of 3: ij `�` Specify off-site drainage improvements within the delineated easement shown on the Riggleman property. 3) Sheet 1 of 3: Consider using OMPA or RCP in lieu of CMP drainage pipe especially under roads and within the stormwater detention basin. In all probability, the pipe sizes shown for the CMP culverts can be reduced by at least one size if RCP pipe is utilized. The Virginia Department of Transportation may have a problem with using CMP under roads to be taken into the state system. 4) Sheet 1 of 3: Fill up to five (5) feet in depth is being proposed for lots 12 and 13. We recommend that the fil� within the proposed building area be placed controlled fill thus requiring removal of the topsoil and the testing of the co ill. A note shall be added to the approve sC _F rawings requiring the submission of compaction reports _�-- prior to issuance of a building permit. Fax: 703/678-0682 - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22604 Saratoga Meadows Page 2 December 2, 1994 5 ) Sheet 1 of 3: Basements are not recommended for lots 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 24 because of the potential for subsurface flows stemming from perched water tables. 6) Evaluate the need for a drainage easement between lots 32 and 33. Also, check the grades in front of these lots. 7) The proposed stormwater management plan appears to be adequate for the proposed development. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harvey Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES:rls cc: file APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION (� FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Date: Application�,� Fee Paid Applicant/Agent: GQEEN coq I fte --� Address: q 7D Phone: Owners name: %JvHu 14eri6 C--t,EZ. ►le4 Address: —31.2.1 Lni-rC-uX=„ /1- %JUNE L. SAeEC.g_ of Zt, Phone: (no8) Please list names of all stockholders: Contact Person: Phone: owners, principals and /or majority Name of Subdivision: Number of Lots 42 Total Acreage (9,443 AC Property Location: SoyT1J�p aPP2ox (Give State Rt.#, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District S�gt��tlFF Tax ID _Number (GPIN) ��_(A�_ trtl IDSA Ib. z96 AC • 3 -1st Ac. -7- Property zoning and present use: T3 1 - f`ESiDGN11Al_. B�1 �cb 2Ezoklet�, TD RPN� P-11 - Adjoining property zoning and use: Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes Y No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of supervisors? Yes No V What was the MDP title?_ S442ATa(:�A MG-AAoc�C Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No V% If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) Number and types of housing units in this development: Number 42, Types _Sim(,LF f7AMIW T)TAcj4�T2.Ab1TIDNA �� Location Map for Saratoga Meadows PIN: 55—A-195 Master Development Plan File # 007-94- & 54---A---125A P/C Review Date: 3/01/95 BOS Review Date: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00195 MICHAEL AND REBECCA SHEFFIELD PET INDUSTRY SUPPLIER (PRODUCE RODENTS) LOCATION: The property is located at 4648 Wardensville Grade, Winchester, Virginia. Directions to the property are as follows: from Route 50 west of Winchester, turn left onto Route 608, the property is located approximately nine miles on the right. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 58 -A -29A PROPERTY ZONING _.& PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) Land use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), Lane Use - vacant PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation: pet industry supplier (producing rodents) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: No comment since property is on a private roadway. Fire Marshall: Approval of this CUP would have no adverse effect on the Fire and Rescue Department resources. A minimum access of 20 feet in width must be provided to all structures. Inspections Department: The building must comply with Virginia Uniform statewide Building Code Section 304, Use Group B (Business) of the BOCA National Building Code 1993. Other codes that apply are the Title 28 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. A permit is required to change the use of an existing building. Health. Department_ A review of the Frederick County Health Department records show that a sewage disposal permit was issued Page 2 for this property on October 9, installation was not inspected by permit states that occupancy is to and that the water use be held to 1974. However the system the Health Department. This be limited to 2 to 3 persons a minimum. Planning Department: With an approved CUP, this use could be allowed under the cottage occupation category. A visit to this location on February 13, 1995 confirmed the suspected isolation of the proposed use location. The location is approximately 1/2 mile from the state maintained road and any other residence. Applicant advised that he intends to house the use in an existing metal building that is adjacent to his residence. The proposed use would have no visible impact on the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR March 1, 1995: Approval with the following condition: 1. Any expansion of facilities required to accommodate the use will require a new or revised conditional use permit. SUMMARY OF 3/1/95 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: i Submittal Deadline( _%� G P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERIC&t'COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: �" [ %l !I �I P T, J/ = r-7' ADDRESS: TELEPHONE S 7 7 - 2_-1 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: G 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) f a Ulf 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of- _ feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact), -7, IS' v i t Z ' c . f yr i/r T%,ssfr•c.�: */P dE c�rQ G L Csj tir�resf,�occrnli^f', 5. The property is owned by /tel, " ac lL lk: as evidenced by deed from , fy s'f� . recorded �Z ,(•previous owner) in deed book no. on page Z y as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District Current Zoning ,p,q 7. Adjoining North East South West Property: i rO8�11 �'r 'i ZONING 44 /4' ..T i Submittal Deadline( _%� G P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERIC&t'COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: �" [ %l !I �I P T, J/ = r-7' ADDRESS: TELEPHONE S 7 7 - 2_-1 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: G 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) f a Ulf 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of- _ feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact), -7, IS' v i t Z ' c . f yr i/r T%,ssfr•c.�: */P dE c�rQ G L Csj tir�resf,�occrnli^f', 5. The property is owned by /tel, " ac lL lk: as evidenced by deed from , fy s'f� . recorded �Z ,(•previous owner) in deed book no. on page Z y as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District Current Zoning ,p,q 7. Adjoining North East South West Property: i rO8�11 �'r 'i ZONING 44 - 8. The type of Use . proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) k1, ZVs I Glf u G/yJ n �� `S ' �' � "✓O iir�I4 c' ,� r a � C GiJ� 0' 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, 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 v n 0 w l N onN 793, 4K x c, � �a Q n d i rt G ' ate N cn rt Z N ! Ize z_ L ol N F P6; foo /oo 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least sever, (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant_��-',,�' Signature of owner , -� =r, ; =• ✓ � f Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. _ 70 3 - -) 7Z _7 `/0 - _ TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: Location Map for. PIN: 58—A-29A Sheffield CUP P/C Review Date: 3/01/95 BOS Review Date: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 002-95 BARRY D. MYERS MOTEL/RESORT (BED & BREAKFAST) LOCATION: This property is located at 473 Vaucluse Road, Stephens City, Virginia. From Stephens City follow Valley Pike (Route 11), south approximately 2 miles to Vaucluse Road (Route 638), on right. Travel approximately 1 mile to the location on the left. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 84-A-53 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) Land use - Residential & Agriculture ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) Land Use - agriculture PROPOSED USE: Motel/Resort (Bed & 'Breakfast) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: See attached comments dated January 19, 1995. Staff Note: The VDOT requirement for a commercial entrance at this location needs to be clarified. The state maintained road leading to the property entrance is unpaved and the entrance driveway will be unpaved. A commercial entrance at this location will not require curb & gutter or paving. It will need to be 30' in width and the location will need to be relocated for better sight visibility. The applicant is aware of this requirement and has agreed to the entrance relocation. Fire Marshall: 1) A use group of this type would have no negative impact on the fire and rescue resources. 2) In concert with the Building Inspections Department, I would require strict adherence to smoke detector regulations, Page 2 including detectors for the hearing impaired. 3) Each building should have its own identifying address. This should be clear and precise with an address plan forwarded to the Stephens city and Middletown Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies. 4) If an adequate water source is on site, the owners should consider installing a dry hydrant. Information on dry hydrants is available through the Fire and Rescue Department. Staff Note: Staff agrees that each structure could have it's own address but some changes would be necessary. The rule is that if there are three or more structures then there would need to be a name assigned to the street on which they are located rather than have all designated as being on Vaucluse Road. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code 1993. Other codes that apply are Title 24 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. NOTE: ADA accessible parking shall be supplied. Pool area shall meet the requirements of Section 421 BOCA and the Frederick County ordinance for fence requirements. Proper plans for Change of Use shall be submitted at the time of permit application. Health Department: See attached comments dated February 1, 1995 Staff Note: The Environmental Health Section has commented the that the Soil Survey map indicates that soils in this area are very limited for permitting septic systems. The applicant has had a soil scientist check the soils and there are adequate soils to meet the needs of the use. The applicant is aware that this must be checked and approved by the Health Department prior to going forward with his plan. Planning Department: The proposed use is permitted by ordinance with an approved conditional use permit. The zoning ordinance does not specifically address a "bed & breakfast" type of operation. One reason for this is the fact that the use is very difficult to define. The national Standard Industrial Classification manual lists bed and breakfast operations under the motel\resort category. Staff believes this is appropriate and avoids any disagreement over the definition. The applicant is aware of the many requirements associated with this use and is prepared to comply as necessary. The applicants have contacted all adjoining property owners to apprise them of their intentions and appropriately answer their questions or concerns. There are several concerns raised by the review agencies and these must be addressed and satisfied if this request is Page 3 permitted. Because of the requirement for relocating the entrance, the fact that several buildings are involved and the magnitude of the use, it would be appropriate to require a site plan for this use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MARCH 1, 1995• Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Any expansion of the use or facilities to accommodate the use will require a new conditional use permit and a revised site plan. 2. A relocated commercial entrance as required by VDOT will be constructed and approved prior to any public use. 3. Approved health systems must be installed prior to any public use. 4. All review agency comments and requirements must be complied with prior to any public use. 5. A site plan must be submitted, approved, and all requirements completed prior to any public use of the facilities. REQUEST FOR C.U.P. ( 01MMENTS APPLICANT Barry D. Myers LOCATION: State Road 638 (473 Paucluse Road) between Route 11 acrd Route 625 Operation of County InnlBed R Breakfast VDOT COMMENTS: 01/19/95 VDOT minimum sight distance requirements are not met at the existing entrance into the property to allow for safe ingress/egress. However, if the entrance is relocated westward slightly minimum sight distance can be obtained. Also, any entrance into the property will need to meet minimum commercial design standards. If the above conditions are met, VDOT has no objections to a conditional use permit being issued for this property. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way will need to be covered under a land use permit. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE DAVID R. GEHR P.O. BOX 278 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P.E. COMMISSIONER EDINBURG. 22824-0278 RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(703)984-5600 FAX(703)984-5607 REQUEST FOR C.U.P. ( 01MMENTS APPLICANT Barry D. Myers LOCATION: State Road 638 (473 Paucluse Road) between Route 11 acrd Route 625 Operation of County InnlBed R Breakfast VDOT COMMENTS: 01/19/95 VDOT minimum sight distance requirements are not met at the existing entrance into the property to allow for safe ingress/egress. However, if the entrance is relocated westward slightly minimum sight distance can be obtained. Also, any entrance into the property will need to meet minimum commercial design standards. If the above conditions are met, VDOT has no objections to a conditional use permit being issued for this property. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way will need to be covered under a land use permit. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Lord Fairiax Environmental He`altll District' y' . 800 Smithfield Avenue P. O. Box 2056 Winchester Virginia 22604 (703) 722-3480 FAX (703) 722-3479 Counties of.- Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, Warren, and City of Winchester The following comments are in response to a REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS COMMENTS submitted to the Frederick County Health Department by Mr. Barry Myers. As the Health Department has not conducted any evaluation of this property for the proposed use, no comments can be given as to actual potential for on-site sewage disposal for the proposed use. The SOIL SURVEY OF FREDERICK COUNTY indicates that the majority of soils on the property are very limited for septic drainfield use. Submittal Deadline % P/C Meeting _ BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1 1. Applicant (The applicant is the owner _X_ other) NAME: Barry D. Myers ADDRESS: 11501 Henderson Rd., Clifton VA 22024 TELEPHONE: 703 250-2112 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: OWNER: Be R. Chun -le Trustee OCCUPANTS: Mr. & Mrs. Charles L. Boyer, Mrs. Thelma Roberts and Dana & Emily Miller 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 473 Vaucluse Road Stephens Ci VA 22655 From Stephens Cim,, follow state route I I south about 2 miles to Vaucluse Road route 638 on rijzht. Travel about I mile to farm on left. 4. The property has a road frontage of 3800 +/- feet and a depth of 2500 +/- feet and consists of 234 acres. (Please be exact.) 5. The property is owned by Bet1ye R. Chumley,Trustee Marital Trust as evidenced by deed from.John W. Chumley (previous owner) recorded in will book no. 74 on page 765, as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 84000-A-0000-0053 _ Magisterial District gpgoton BA,.,, K_ Cp EEK _ Current Zoning RA 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North A riculture RA East Agriculture RA (Potomac Edison?) South Agriculture RA West Agriculture RA s The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planninq Dept: before completing) Motel/Resort (Bed & Breakfast) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Three outbuildings near the historic structure will be reconstructed for use as guest cottages. 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 Woodbine Farms, Inc. Address 510 Barley Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 84000-A-0000-00-50 Address Henry I. Snider, Jr. Donald E. Shanahan, Jr. Property ID# Address Property ID# Charles W. Fletcher Address r Ste hens Ci VA Property ID# Charles & Robin Bentley Address 1 Rd. Middletown, VA 22645 Property ID# 8400 -A -0000-00-28A Woodbine Farms, Inc. Address 510 Barley Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 8400-A-0000-00-2 9 NAME U I MAIN NOUS` 2 QOOLL a GALLA FLY 4 6AiLO S tav Awsw- � SN>ED >i 90fOR1C. YAut,-JSgr q OLD IFOJNDATIot4, 4 C*IMNSY to I" Home R010S II' OL -O' F-OVNOAT10a3 1 8� 11 0 ¢� 7a�sP{�tA1(. Poap numbers 1 through 8 are existing structures numbers 9 through 11 are existing sites of proposed reconstructions 2©QT 4Q S is r- �p PQ L-A qO VA L- Ac L- LA S EF I -THE CHUMLEY PRCDPERTY ) `}-73 VAuc.SLc- ROAD S'rV7fW&NS CIT'( VICG1rJtAr -rA%X ID 8+-A -53 0 100 L50 ou ��oOC N N �ro ro � K ►� NPO 0; K N (D (D (D (D N rt (D N ¢' rt rt O E.. O K N (D p. ~ N rt (D LQ O (D. (ntl rt- K .0 � O n rt K ~� G N (D(Dx NNrt O� ct O .: M (D rort K � o fD roro O K K O rt ,.O ., K. N• rt r: 'ts .O 1sE eeZ° q C, NO d�f- ne o cots tt en a`L�Oat% .�tl)—, N) ° _ 11 / a b SL v �, Rl2 f'.{dO1vK:.f�' moC• r10 `�('� "''* o QO J� ¢. o f � � � / /•. �r,( %�` � !• .\ J o � INDIA' "OtOva J _ /;j}�, �. /• '/ ter,., �r�50 F, I, Radia - ♦ ; 0�Towers mYpMa 1 1 fJ� e°t � Qae HIY HIII 37 / � FNtr aEllK LLE ~ 'y=,°t arc Flow`H�, ill reek 50 �° of • //!' f Jt'% ! sj ed� `. `,r ao , 1 sal vie ei ht • HYoh �,° e f/) ..'; Fir+ I tti — a / 9 .._ �r. '♦ ( man" EwS ♦+ a:. V / / F° F M�p0 us 9 , . / Greenavood' tier pE °fir t �a % � � � •~.:' a>L Ey a ^0E � r 17 l � Ffelphn � I aT REEK a tao50 11 w\ l rtoo �:7+ c / 9 �0 8uckt =n L� sut URI , s 4 �a�/r �o ) p(in + 4a1-4E1mtown/ eo�E / Rl eglonaa,' PAY' A 522 `fret Alrpon • ,yr ea 60 incl ° 4a P o ryt Ro �sab or37 t ee v' 11(•1°ger o+ l•ar fr � qO�S �Ea�''so ! a '�/f � r..nlAs 1r�� 4D/ y + / 111. MFETD, No reek 91111; aD 230 t 81 l o to ! t11 a i e V /ne 522 subl�'Cr t �.s�. ? °rioRao equ4cm 4O F PrflPert y a .r Ra 1 re°LE *° .. tea° - - .. o� r J ryi �` `` =5u , er', �,�� as Y.'>•I 1Nrt J 0 ,p,!` - `i _°"''rt - 'est` - + ` % / _.�� •~ ��.`_ >: 277 owbk d} O F m 340 340 t 522 % �� r 1 �� o�0 4io � taC� � /sIc cs tis' a 7 � hc'+ t 1(� �✓ U/ �wfay as ♦ C: ; ,�, lh h ! e / Ina 1n 'Y- •ft a 1�1 r ,i �,ta <S *c°° -/r 87 °• a /� /'� •_� L �Q C4 o e X11 CediiEA Of !• } r t 'INI / � \0 NO Fdt!•�1 , f �� , yGy`:, A 1 p; � • ` 'Q4q "° c �� 7 2017; 0-- R" ,R" x \ W NR N = r — 66 ti t'i chance 'ra Geo° 340 4 a J Q ��"'•1� � _,©� OTITIC (PEthvE_ 522 ''i i pe ,@74 KFRONT ROYAL ILOMETER$ 1 0 , 2 1 , 5 6 r 6 5^ LOCATER MAP ON BACK OF ATLAS MILES 1 o 2 5 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant ✓Signature of Owner 54� , Owners' Mailing Address— �z't�� Owners' Telephone No. C) 03 g�,q -7 7 - TO TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: 12. Additional comments: We are applying for a conditional use permit to operate a bed and.-breakfast country inn under the motel/resort use category. Although our proposbd operation will have some elements in common with the traditional concept of a motel resort, because it is a bed and breakfast, it will be on a much smaller scale, having much less impact on the surrounding area than a motel or large resort. We will have no more than 15 guest rooms. We propose to provide breakfast and dinner for our guests only; we have no plans to operate a public restaurant. We intend to purchase approximately 100 acres of the existing 234 acre tract and to continue the bulk of this acreage in agricultural land use. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 MEMORANDUM FAX 703/678-0682 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning DirectorC' I SUBJECT: Amendment to Buffer and Screening Requirements DATE: February 17, 1995 As the Commission will recall, Mr. Ralph Gregory was present at the meeting of January 18, 1995 to informally discuss buffer and screening requirements on a B2 Zoned parcel within his business park located on the west side of Route 11 South, just south of the Route 37 interchange. The surrounding property is all zoned B2, except to the west which remains RA (Rural Areas). Mr. Gregory and his partners have a prospective purchaser for a lot near the rear (western portion) of their B2 business park (which is currently vacant). The prospective user required B3 zoning and desired visibility from Route 11. If the parcel in question was rezoned to B3 to accommodate the proposed use, then a category "B" buffer would be required where the parcel adjoins B2 Zoning. A "B" buffer requires either a 50' distance buffer with full landscape screen (includes a six foot high opaque fence, wall, or berm), a 100' buffer with a landscaped screen (same planting requirements as a full screen, but no fence required), or a 200' distance buffer with no visual screen. Because the user wanted to be visible from Route 11, they did not wish to put in a visual screen along the eastern edge of the site. They could avoid this by placing a 200' distance buffer along the eastern side of the site, however, they feel this was excessive. The Commission felt that some flexibility on buffers and screening could be allowed within approved master planned developments, and an amendment to the zoning ordinance could be considered that would give the Commission the leeway to reduce or waive the buffer under certain circumstances. It was felt that if granted, a reduction or waiver of the buffer and screening requirements would have to be tied to a particular site plan, so that if the use of the property changed, the reduction or waiver would not transfer to the new use. Because of the time constraints involved with Mr. Gregory's client, the Planning Commission req.:ested that the staff draft a proposed amendment to allow a buffer and screening reduction waiver which would be site plan controlled. The staff has drafted a proposed amendment and this has been advertised for public hearing. 107 North Kent Street - P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 AC770N.- PL_.ANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AMENDMENT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165, ZONING WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning; Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-37, Buffer and Screening Requirements, which would permit the Planning Commission to allow a modified Zoning District Buffer under certain specified conditions on land located within an approved master development plan, was referred to the Planning Commission on March 1, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on March 1, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on , 1995; and, WHEREAS, 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, Chapter 165, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-37, Buffer and Screening Requirements, is amended as follows. D. Zoning District Buffers Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed when it adjoins land in certain different zoning districts (6) Where B-3 (Industrial Transition) zoning adjoins B-2 (Business General) zoning on land contained within an approved Master Development Plan, the Planning Commission may allow for specific modifications in screening requirements. (a) Such modifications shall be allowed at the Commission's discretion, provided all the following conditions are met. (1) The property line for which the modification is requested is internal to the land contained within the Master Development Plan. (2) A specified use is proposed on the parcel for which the modification is requested. (3) The modification shall not involve a reduction to required buffer distances (4) The proposed components of the buffer are clearly indicated on a site plan for the parcel. (5) The site plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The approval of modified screening shall apply only for the specified use approved Any change in use of the parcel including additions or site alterations may require review by the Planning Commission and may result in the Commission revoking the modified screening approval. This ordinance shall he in effect upon its passage. Passed this Richard G Dick Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. day of MOM Jimmie K Ellington James L. Longerbeam Robert M. Sager A Copy Attest John R Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 MEMQRAN:DUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner 111 RE: 1995 Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan DATE: February 16, 1995 Each year, Frederick County Officials attend the Commonwealth Transportation Board PreaRocation hearing for the Staunton District. This hearing allows localities to inform VDOT officials of their various needs for primary road improvements. The 1995 Preallocation Hearing will be held at the Augusta County Government Center on March 21, 1995. Frederick County has received the revised Commonwealth Transportation Board Final Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 1995-1996. This document addresses two projects that have received actual allocations and have been considered for proposed allocations that will allow for their completion. These projects include the completion of the four lane primaryarterial segment of Route 522 South of Winchester, and the improvements to the Interstate 81/Route 37/Route 1 l North interchange area. The proposed 1995 Primary Road Improvement Plan has been revised to preface the projects that have received actual and proposed allocations, while describing the new primary road projects that are determined to be significant for transportation improvements within Frederick County and the community. The Transportation Committee reviewed the proposed 1995 Primary Road Improvement Plan during their meeting of February 14, 1995. The Transportation Committee recommended unanimous approval of this plan with minor editorial comments. These comments have been incorporated into this version of the plan. Staff will provide a graphic display which 'delineates the new projects specified in this plan. Staff asks that the Planning Commission review this plan and provide a recommendation that �viil be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition. 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 %Vinchester, `,, 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 1995 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN NEW PROTECTS 1} Route 37 Eastern By-pass (Alternative C) From: Route 37 North at Stephenson To: Route 37 South at Kernstown Plan, engineer, acquire necessary right-of-way, and construct a by-pass to provide future additional limited access arterial capacity east of Winchester. This is needed to accommodate planned land use and economic development in Eastern Frederick County. This will include long term solutions to interchange areas at I-81 /11 North/37/661 and 1-81/11 South/37/642. 2) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) From: I -81/11S/277/647 Intersection (South of Winchester) To: Route 340/522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate) Improve the existing two lane road facility by widening and straightening immediately. Conduct detailed studies to determine future needs for four lane improvements and improvements to the 1-81/11 South/277/647 intersection area. 3) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester) A. Valley Pike (Route 11 South) From: Middle Road To: 37 Interchange Widen and improve to five lanes. B. Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) From: Winchester Citv Limits To: 3, it section Widen and improve as necessary. Page -2- 1995 Primary Road Improvement Plan 4) Interstate 81 (East of Winchester) From: Stephenson Interchange To: Middletown Interchange Study and improve to six lanes between Winchester exits if necessary. 5) Commuter Park and Ride Lots Conduct studies and utilize existing= information from the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission to determine the location of needed facilities. Consideration should be given to properties within the proximity of intersections of Route 37 East with Berryville Pike (Route 7) and Millwood Pike (Route SO). i 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 ,J RE: Request For Buffer Requirement Waiver DATE: February 16, 1995 Representatives of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates have asked for an opportunity to address the Planning Commission regarding the potential to reduce some of the buffer requirements associated with the First Virginia Square Site Development Plan. The Planning Commission is allowed to waive any or all of the requirements for a zoning district buffer if natural barriers, topography or other features achieve the functions of the required screen. In the case of the First Virginia Square Site Development Plan, the developer is required to provide for a landscaped screen. The specifications of this type of buffer require a ten foot landscaped easement with three trees for each ten linear feet. Two-thirds of these trees are required to be evergreen and one-third deciduous. The current design for this project does not allow for a ten foot landscaped area. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that additional measures be taken, such as the provision of a wooden fence that would be required for a full screen. This fence, along with selective tree plantings will be proposed in lieu of the requirements for the landscaped screen. The developer is attempting to work out an agreement with the adjoining property owner that will provide for an easement to be granted for the landscaped screen. The request for the waiver is a fall back position for the developer in the event that this easement is not granted. 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 N f]SR �TM� i , , M" i eAtx t,� r r -705" i I � ;;; 7�S AM ' —fJI"A ` \\ � i f- a s.s.L U. S. ROUTE 11/VA ROUTE 37 MARTINS13URG PIKE I M� Mf:. 63 4060 Landscape Screen Area X10 NaN CVMM ShrR oC€ (7.) _X Virginia Square w.�First tlb Overall Site Development Plan �'U a En J .V- A e ` 1 o -c oa a.„ w om on�'S 5 ns Frederick County, Virginia dw9- no: "3121.dw "job no: 121 I' 1 OF 1 drawn by. twp date: January, q1995SHE�i a roved by CEM scale: 1 "= 40" COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator - SUBJECT: Bi -Monthly Report DATE: February 15, 1995 The purpose of this memo is to request a review of the unwritten policy that the staff has been working under concerning site plans. The policy has been that when a site pian has been officially submitted to the department, it is placed on the bi-monthly report which goes before the Commission at each meeting. When a plan appears on the bi-monthly report and there is no request for formal review from the Commission, then we assume administrative approval authority. Our policy has been to take all site plans which involve spending of public monies or modification of public facilities to the Commission for formal review. We also present plans for formal review any time the Commission requests same. We have found this procedure somewhat cumbersome at times because the plan may be held up for two weeks or more simply awaiting appearance on the bi-monthly report. We believe this procedure needs to be changed. Over the last four years (1991 through 1994) no site plan has gone to the Planning Commission for review as a result of appearing on the bi-monthly report and subsequently being requested for review. The number of site plans submitted by staff for formal review by the Commission is as follows: 1991 - 25 site plans submitted 4 reviewed by the Commission 1992 - 23 site plans submitted 4 reviewed by the Commission 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Page 2 Frederick County Planning Commission February 15, 1995 1993 - 44 site plans submitted 2 reviewed by the Commission 1994 - 35 site plans submitted 2 reviewed by the Commission This amounts to approximately 10% of the total plans submitted being reviewed by the Commission. Of the 12 plans reviewed over the last four years, only one of those involved a facility other than one on which public money was being spent. This one was the recent plan for the Taco Bell facility at the corner of Welltown Road and Martinsburg Pike. This was formally presented to the Commission because of a controversial matter involved in development of the parcel. The staff requests that the procedure for the site plan process be changed to allow us to administratively approve site plans without them needing to appear on the bi-monthly report. We would continue to automatically present plans which involved public facilities or the spending of public monies. We would also formally present plans that had previously been requested by the Commission, such as in the case of an approved CUP that requires a site plan and the Commission requests formal review. We would also bring plans for formal review if there was controversy that could not be resolved by the staff or the staff determines that it would be appropriate to submit them for review by the Commission. We would continue to submit the site plans on the bi-monthly report for the Commission's information and be prepared to answer any questions the Commission may have about any particular plan. Request formal approval of this procedure. W WM/laf