PC 03-15-95 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
MARCH 15, 1995
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes of February 1, 1995 ......................... A
2) Bimonthly Report ...................................... B
3) Committee Reports ..................................... C
4) Citizen Comments ..................................... D
5) Informal Discussion Regarding an Amendment to the RP (Residential
Performance) Zoning District to allow Veterinary Hospitals with a Conditional
Use Permit.
(Mr. Tierney) .......... .............................. E
6) Informal Discussion with Mr. John Stevens Regarding a Rezoning From B-1
(Neighborhood Business) District to B-2 (Business General) District for an art
gallery/framing shop.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................F
7) Informal Discussion with Linden Unger Regarding a Rezoning from B2 (Business
General) District to RP (Residential Performance) District.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................G
8) Discussion on the Streamlining of the Site Plan Review Process
(Ms. Moore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H
MISCELLANEOUS
9) Other ...................................... . . . . . . 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 F
RE: Correction To Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 1, 1995
DATE: March 8, 1995
During the discussion regarding truck rental or leasing facilities, representatives of Penske Truck
Leasing expressed concerns with the performance standard which limited the size of fuel storage
tanks for their operation. They suggested that a limitation of 20,000 gallon tanks would be
appropriate based on the methods of fuel delivery to their establishment. After additional
discussion, the Planning Commission felt that the size of the fuel tank was not an issue if retail
fuel sales were prohibited. Therefore, staff recommends that the fifth paragraph on page 4 of
the minutes be revised as follows:
Commissioners felt that the truck and fleet maintenance facilities should only be
permitted in industrial parks, but the truck rental and leasing facilities would not have to be
limited to industrial parks. They also felt that if the performance standards prohibited retail
sales of fuels, then the size of the fuel tanks for truck rental and leasing facilities were
irrelevant.
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
February 1, 1995.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.,
Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek
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; and Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison.
ABSENT: George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Marjorie
H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City
Liaison
Planning Staff present: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; Evan A.
Wyatt, Planner II; and Jean M. Moore, Planner I.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven 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 December 7, 1994 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
F & M Bank Site Plan
Mr. Wyatt stated that the staff has received a proposed minor site plan for a bank
at Country Park Plaza. He said that the site plan is for the addition of two drive-through lanes,
2
an ATM, and a canopy to the existing building. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff has no outstanding
concerns with the site plan.
Mr. Sager asked if a traffic signal is planned for this area.
Mr. William H. Bushman, VDOT's resident engineer, said that a turning
movement study was done at this location about one year ago. Mr. Bushman said that none of
the standard conditions for determining that a signal is warranted were met. He said that
approximately 6,000-7,000 cars per day travel on Senseny Road and considerably less on
Greenwood Road. He said that if conditions change and a traffic light is needed, VDOT will
install one. He said that this can be accomplished within about 90 days of when the need is
identified.
The Commission instructed the staff to proceed with administrative review and
approval.
First Virginia Square (Holtzman) Site Plan
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the consulting
engineers, said that during the Commission's discussions of the Taco Bell site plan, a number
of questions arose regarding the transportation planning for that area in light of his client's
proposal for the adjacent Holtzman tract. He reminded the Commission that the Holtzman tract
proposal is for a fast food restaurant, convenience store with gasoline pumps, an office building,
and a car wash facility.
Mr. Maddox explained the revised transportation plan for that area. The plan
included the construction of a temporary crossover on Route 11, across from the Amoco Foam
entrance, which would line up with the permanent entrance of the convenience store on the
Holtzman tract. He said that at a later time, adjacent to this tract, a permanent crossover facility
will be built just to the west by VDOT as a part of the restructuring of this whole area. It
would also include moving the entrance of Crown, Cork & Seal back to their property line. He
said that the plan for a full left turn access in and out of the facility will eliminate the need for
the frontage road that was an issue with the Taco Bell, but the inter parcel connection between
the two parking areas will still be provided.
The Commissioners had questions and concerns about the traffic pattern in this
area.
Mr. Bushman came forward and explained VDOT's traffic plans for this area.
Mr. Bushman said that a frontage road will be reconstructed parallel to Route 11 and will come
into the Amoco Foam entrance road. He said that discussions with Crown, Cork & Seal have
been favorable as far as the relocation of their entrance. He said that other improvements for
this general area are located near the old drive-in theater.
3
The Commissioners instructed the staff to proceed with administrative review and
approval of the site plan.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations_ Subcommittee - 1/26/95 Mtg.
Mr. Wyatt reported that the DRRS discussed the issue of signs near intersections
on interstate roads and proposed amendments to the current sign regulations. He said that one
of the issues was to determine if there was a need to allow commercial business signs along
interstate interchange areas to be at a greater height and greater square footage than signs in
other areas of the county. Mr. Wyatt elaborated on the subcommittee's discussions. He said
that the subcommittee felt there was a need to conduct further studies regarding this issue.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee - 1/9/95 Mtg.
In the absence of Mrs. Copenhaver, Mr. Watkins said that the CPPS is plotting
their course for the next year. He said that their discussions are now centering on the rural
community centers. He said that the centers that will be studied are the ones that had sewer
studies conducted on them (Clearbrook/Brucetown areas).
Battlefield Task Force
Mr. Watkins reported that there will be one or two more meetings of the Task
Force to finalize an actual plan for a battlefield network in the area. He said that a worksession
for the City and County Planning Commissions, the Board, and the Council will be scheduled
for March to review the draft plan work that has been done.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUCK RENTAL AND LEASING FACILITY AMENDMENTS
Mr. Wyatt said that on January 4, 1995, the Planning Commission discussed a
proposed amendment to allow truck rental and leasing facilities as a principal use in the Mi
2
(Light Industrial) Zoning District, which was requested by Penske Trucking Company. Mr.
Wyatt said that this is a permitted use in the B3 (Industrial Transition) and M2 (Industrial
General) Districts, but not in the M1 (Light Industrial) District.
Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS and representatives for Economic Development felt
the use was appropriate in the M1 District, but raised concerns that certain maintenance -type
operations be done indoors and that storage remain indoors. Mr. Wyatt read the proposed
performance standards that would be associated with this use in M I.
Mr. Scott Shriver, with Penske Truck Leasing, stated that their primary customers
are commercial companies, who operate private truck fleets, and who produce a product and
need to get the product to their retail outlet, such as K -Mart, Dominoes Pizza, etc. Mr. Shriver
said that they also do contract maintenance which involves a pre -arranged agreement.
Commissioners had questions on whether the 10,000 gallon fuel storage tank listed
in the performance standards was adequate. Mr. Shriver said that a safer number might be
20,000, although they don't anticipate storing fuel at this particular location. Mr. Shriver
explained that diesel fuel is delivered 7,000 gallons at once and if the tank's capacity is 10,000
and there is 3,500 gallons already in the tank, it could create an overflow problem.
Commissioners felt that the truck and fleet maintenance facilities should only be
permitted in industrial parks, but the truck rental and leasing facilities would not have to be
limited to industrial parks. They also felt that if the performance standards prohibited retail
sales of fuels, they could be more lenient on the size of the fuel storage tanks and recommended
that the size be increased to 20,000 gallons rather than 10,000.
There were no other citizen comments regarding the amendment.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Morris,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X,
Business and Industrial District, to allow truck rental and leasing facilities in the Ml (Light
Industrial) District, and Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, to create performance
standards for truck rental and leasing facilities in the M1 (Light Industrial) District, as follows:
ARTICLE X - Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
165-82D M-1 Light Industrial District Allowed Uses
Truck Rental and Leasing, Without Drivers SIC - 7513
5
ARTICLE IV - Supplementary Use Regulations
165-48.2 Truck or Fleet Maintenance Facilities and Truck Rental and Leasing Facilities
Without Drivers
Where allowed, truck or fleet maintenance facilities and truck rental and leasing facilities
without drivers, shall meet the following requirements:
A. In the M-1 Light Industrial District, truck or fleet maintenance facilities shall only be
permitted in industrial parks.
B. Truck or fleet maintenance facilities may have fuel service provided that it is limited to
one gasoline storage tank of 10,000 gallons or less and one diesel storage tank of 10,000
gallons or less.
C. All repair and maintenance operations shall occur within a completely enclosed structure.
D. Outdoor storage of parts associated with repair and maintenance shall not be permitted.
E. Retail fuel sales shall not be permitted.
F. The Planning Commission may require additional buffers and screening other than those
defined in Section 165-37 of this Chapter.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICT AND THE REFUGE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICT
Mr. Wyatt said that during the Planning Commission's informal discussion on
January 4 of the proposed Agricultural and Forestal Districts, the Commission examined the
possibility of relocating a portion of the Urban Development Boundary Line that traverses the
132 acre Charles Racey tract. He said that the Commission also discussed the potential for
creating land use and land division restrictions for properties that are part of this district. Mr.
Wyatt reviewed the uses and land division restrictions suggested by the land owners within the
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came
forward to speak:
n
Mr. Lawrence Fagg, resident of the Opequon District, came forward to speak in
favor of the proposed districts. Mr. Fagg said that about a year and a half ago, the issue of a
66 -home development, south of Route 277 on Route 641, came before the Planning Commission.
He said that the Commission recommended denial of the development, but the Board of
Supervisors approved it. Mr. Fagg said that as a reaction to that, he started a petition requesting
that the Planning Commission not extend the Urban Development Area any further than it
already was down Routes 641 and 640. He said that he obtained 120 signatures on the petition
and it was submitted last fall. Mr. Fagg said that he wanted to point out that there is a
consensus of the people in that area to support this kind of proposal.
Mr. John Stelzl, resident of the Opequon District, spoke in support of the
establishment of the proposed Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District and the
Refuge Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District. Mr. Stelzl provided some history on
how the people in his area organized and worked with the Planning Staff and the County's
extension agent to form these two districts. Mr. Stelzl felt that both the property owners and
the County could benefit from the formation of Agricultural Districts.
Mr. Jay Banks, resident of Stonewall District, said that he represents Frederick
County on the Board of Directors of the Valley Conservation Council. Mr. Banks said that the
Valley Conservation Council has submitted a letter in support of the two proposed Agricultural
and Forestal Districts.
Some of the issues discussed by the staff and Commission were: 1) that the
district should not prohibit land being transferred from one property owner to another; 2) the
land division restrictions should not prohibit family divisions; and, 3) the advantages of owning
property within the Agricultural District included land use taxation and status, while
disadvantages included restrictions to land use and land divisions and the five-year commitment.
Another issue of discussion centered on the fact that construction of roadways would be
restricted in this district as proposed and Commissioners questioned whether or not this was
appropriate in light of the rapid growth in this area. Mr. Thomas noted that Route 277 has
substantial traffic volume and some substantial problems, including the intersection across to
Stephens City. Mr. Thomas said that it was possible that in the future, the only way to correct
these traffic problems would be to build another intersection on I-81 and another road going
east -west in that area. He said that the only place to build that would be south of Route 277
through this area and connecting to the southern end of Stephens City on Route 11. Mr.
Thomas said that as the Agricultural District is now proposed, that would be prohibited.
Mr. Thomas added that he hoped this district was being proposed in the sense that
it was a good preservation of open land and agricultural and forestal area and not as a way to
prevent future growth.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
endorse the proposed Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District, located in the
southeastern portion of Frederick County, with road frontage along Double Church Road (Rt.
641), Canterburg Road (Rt. 636), Grim Road (Rt. 640), and x'ise Mill Lane (Rt. 73i)
:,
consisting of 1,400 acres with 21 property owners; and the proposed Refuge Church Road
Agricultural and Forestal District, located in the southeastern portion of Frederick County, with
road frontage along Refuge Church Road (Rt. 640) and East Refuge Church Road (Rt. 639), and
consisting of 360 acres with six property owners.
1994 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FREDERICK COUNTY
Mr. Watkins presented the 1994 Annual Report for Frederick County. Mr.
Watkins said that the purpose of the report is primarily to provide the Commission with
information to evaluate the previous year and for comprehensive planning for the upcoming year.
Commissioners suggested that with the GIS and AutoCAD technology that is now
available, that the staff provide a reference map with overlays for the Planning Commission and
Board's use showing such things as UDA, sewer, water, zoning, existing housing, existing lots,
open areas, etc., so that it can be referenced at the meeting when proposals are considered.
CANCELLATION OF FEBRUARY 15 1995 REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Watkins said there were no pending items for consideration at the Planning
Commission's February 15 meeting and the staff is proposing that the meeting be cancelled. He
said that instead of having the regular meeting, the staff is proposing an open house/reception
for the Commission's retiring Chairman, James W. Golladay, Jr.
The Commission was in favor of cancelling the meeting of February 15, 1995 and
having the open house/reception for James W. Golladay, Jr. on that night.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FORJAMES W. GOLLADAY R.
The Planning Commission and staff worked together on composing a Resolution
of Appreciation for James W. Golladay, Jr., the Commission's retiring Chairman.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
endorse the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
Il [tl► 1 : I► !�
JAMES W. GOLLADAY, JR.
WHEREAS, James W. Golladay, Jr. served on the Frederick County Planning Commission with
dedication from November 19, 1975 until January 4, 1995; and as Chairman of the Frederick
County Planning Commission from January 18, 1989 to January 4, 1995; and,
WHEREAS, James W. Golladay, Jr. displayed complete dedication to Frederick County and
planning for its future, even to the extent of personal sacrifice; and,
WHEREAS, he displayed the ability to stay calm and maintain order under the most difficult
circumstances; and,
WHEREAS, his profound knowledge of the County and its planning history was reflected in his
great insight and thoughtful consideration of the countless items that came before the
Commission; and,
WHEREAS, he was an exemplary leader and gave invaluable guidance to the Planning
Commission and its members:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That on this first day of February, 1995, the
Frederick County Planning Commission wishes James W. Golladay, Jr., the best for his future
and expresses sincere and profound appreciation for his leadership, dedication, and lasting,
positive impact on Frederick County.
ADJOURNMENT
p.m.
X
No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:45
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, 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
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
Approved: (dates
are approval
dates)
NONE
(4) Site Plans Pending: dates are submittal dates)
Wheatlands Wastewater Fac.
Grace Brethren Church
Flex Tech
Lake Centre
Westminster Canterbury
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
01/05/95 Shaw
02/16/95 Opeq
02/08/95 Gain
Trmt.facil
Church
Lgt. Industrial
Townhouses
Duplex Housing
Apartments
Motel
Burger King/Amoco
(5) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates)
Bank of Clarke Co. 02/24/95 Shaw New Bank Branch
(6) Subdivisions Pending: dates are submittal dates
Briarwood Est. 01/04/94 Ston
2
(7) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C or BOS approval
da tee
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
Saratoga Meadows 03/01/95 Shaw
Hampton Chase Section I 11/02/94 Ston
(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
10) variances Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Timothy & Kevin Giroux 02/24/95 BaCk
Darroll & Patricia Neely 02/27/95 Gain
1E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #76 (Feb. 15_-28)
1. Transportation
Kris Tierney received word from VDOT's William Bushman
that the official bid date has been set for the Route 642 project
in June.
2. Historic Issues
A rough draft of the New Commercial Construction
guidelines for Historic Areas was presented to the Historic
Resources Advisory Board. While still in its developmental stages,
the guidelines are intended to assist the historic overlay
districts of the County to maintain their historical character
while balancing the increase in commercial development pressure.
3. Plan Reviews, Approvals, and Site Inspections:
Evan Wyatt conducted site inspections at the Taco Bell
Restaurant on Welltown Road, at Regency Lakes Mobile Home Park on
Regency Lakes Drive, and at Truck Parts Unlimited on Marathon
Drive.
Evan Wyatt approved a site plan for the Bank of Clarke
County branch on Senseny Road.
Kris Tierney reviewed an impact statement prepared by
Lewis and Associates for D. K. Erectors for a potential rezoning of
ten acres from RA to M-1. The parcel is located behind the
existing D. K. Erectors facility (zoned M-2) on the north side of
Route 50 West.
Kris met with Mr. John Stevens to discuss the potential
for rezoning a three acre parcel from B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
to B-2 (Business General). The parcel is located on the east side
of Route 11, south of Middletown.
4. Development Review & Regulations subcommittee (DRRS)
The DRRS began a preliminary draft of the vested rights
policy statement for Frederick County, fine-tuned the proposed sign
amendments as recommended by the Chamber of Commerce, and discussed
the necessary components for the creation of a sign overlay zone
for specific properties along Interstate 81 interchange areas.
Staff is continuing to compile topological and building
permit data pertaining to Interstate 81 and the properties that
have been developed around the interchange area. Existing and
proposed land uses and viewshed analysis will be considered as
well. Staff will work with the DRRS and members of the Board,
Planning Commission, and BZA throughout this process.
5. Meetings
Bob Watkins, Jean Moore, and Eric Lawrence participated
in the LFPDC's Valley Vision Forum held February 23, 1995. This,
the first of three planned forums, will assist in developing a plan
for the Northern Shenandoah Valley through the year 2020.
Evan Wyatt met with Steve Gyurisin to discuss development
issues associated with Regency Lakes Mobile Home Park - Section D.
Evan Wyatt met with John Theis to discuss proposed
improvements to the State Line Exxon on Martinsburg Pike.
Evan Wyatt met with Manual Sempeles, BZA Chairman, to
discuss specific issues associated with the proposed sign overlay
zones.
Evan Wyatt and Wayne Miller met with Jenny Pak to discuss
site plan requirements for proposed improvements to the Signal
Station complex on Northwestern Pike.
Kris Tierney and Eric Lawrence met with Chuck Maddox and
Steve Gyurisin of G.W. Clifford to discuss the Star Fort MDP.
Jean Moore met with Jay Cook on February 21, 1995 to
discuss how to proceed with an excess dwelling violation at
Aberdeen Acres.
Jean Moore met with Patricia Neely, Bootsie Giroux, and
Fred Simmons independently to discuss three separate variances.
6. GIS/Mapping
Jean Moore has begun mapping to aid discussions
concerning the Round Hill Rural Community Center.
Jean Moore, Evan Wyatt, and Eric Lawrence reviewed, and
when necessary corrected Tiger file maps of Frederick County for
the U.S. Census Bureau.
:e COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
IN,
703/665-5651
P FAX 703/678-0682
3a
I�
04,A
X
TO: Planning Commission MembersC
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Informal Discussion Regarding Possible AmenMent to RPResid n i�
( e t dl
Performance) zoning to allow Veterinary Hospitals with a Conditional > �s
Permit \ 6 ,
DATE: February 23, 1995 ���%�
..r..�._ --
Attached is a letter from Mr. Bruce Welch, DVM discussing his desire to establish a
veterinary hospital on the east side of Route 647. The property where Mr. Welch would
��.
like to locate is currently zoned RP (Residential Performance). B-2 (Business General)
zoning would be required. l
The parcel in question is surrounded on three sides by RP zoning with B-2 zoning across
Aylor Road. Mr. Welch was before the Commission a couple of months ago discussing the
possibility of rezoning this parcel to B-2.
A plat of the parcel, a location map, and a sketch of the proposed facility are attached.
Please let me know if there are any questions regarding this item.
KCT/laf
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
Planning Commission Members
P.O. Box 601, 9 North Loudoun St.
Winchester, VA 22601
Bruce E. Welch, DVM
1904 Double Church Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
(703) 869-3559
February 20, 1995
Dear Planning Commission,
My goal is to open a Veterinary Hospital offerring progressive medical
and surgical care on a property at 689 Aylor Road (647) near Stephens
City. While the property currently consists of 2.046 acres, I am
interested in utilizing approximately .7 acres that will require rezoning to
B-2 or amendment of the current Zoning Chapter 165 from the CODE of the
County of Frederick. The purpose of reappearing before the commission is
to informally discuss this project to best determine the optimal way of
proceeding for myself and the county. An amendment of the Zoning CODE
RP 165-60 Conditional Uses with the addition of an F. to include,
"Veterinary Office, Clinic, or Hospital with acceptible buffering and
minimal effects to the community on lighting, noise, excluding overnight
boarding for non-medical/surgical patients." Such an amendment could be
benificial to the property by allowing (165-58) "efficient land use
patterns" and would allow less impact upon neighbors directly bordering
my proposed facility construction site.
The property is located on Aylor Road just past Fredericktown drive,
(between R. E. Aylor and Bass -Hoover) and has an exsisting 1 1/2 story
brick and shingle dwelling constructed in the 1050's. My hope is to
construct an animal hospital beside this house which would be
approximately 50-60 feet in width and 40-50 feet in depth. It will be
single -story in design and have a professional appearance which will "fit
in" with the surrounding homes and will likely staff two veterinarians.
have enclosed a 5/13/91 survey map with an estimated location of
the affected area and a proposed Hospital location including parking. I
would welcome the commissions opinions, ideas, questions, and concerns.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bruce E. Welch, DVM
C" -
tole
=4
i-redericktowne, I Section
Lot 1 9
Tv C Boz 'j Lot 2 Ty C Box
N
o-
S Ar 24''44' E
� - Te 1 eohouie Bax
1 N�
s
-i
Dpen
gPorch -1 •3'
Walk IS2.2'
n r Deck
�d
r
- Dani t. Ent.
jrWell
_walk � Block
_CwaBe
431.00'.
Lot Telephone 5�1
Telepha�a TY Cable bort I
Bac �
f NOTES
Ito Title Re port Furnished.
The Property shown on this plat is that
name property conreyed by Ernest W.
Crrck and Carolyn J. Creek, his wife,
to Wade E. Lautzeuhtl_ser and Karen
m D. Lautzenheiser, his wife, by a deed
o dated September 30, 1985 and recorded
y
Ln D_B_602, P.413.
,k 11.I > property shorn on this plat is located
I
In Zane ' C' , as shown on !U :Flood i ns vrsnca
N --- hate Wp, Community -Panel Number 510063
I _ =0 D, effect(re data of J-aly 17, 19TE.
« S. This property.ls shown on Frederick County
i r c Tax "a"saent No. 75 - A - hrc�sl 3a.
2.046 ACRES m o �.
Frame Bldg. o f
s
36.2' _ c., Qiiott Ritcf►ie, Jr
.r
N
tiUr. n
Lot 1 NV 06 26' 17" W - 523.35'
Lot 2
—'__300 Drainage ——Easoa�n
Frederic kaoxne, Section One
n1lit Is to certify that on May 13, 1991, I
made an accurate ata-rey of the premises
shown hereon and that there are no easement
or eacroadtments rfsible 0a the ground other
than those shown hereon.•
F'R E D E R I C K R O A D
T
LK;ENSE no �
- 1318
SU
Lot S
I HOUSE LOCATION
PROPERTY OF
- Wade E. _Lautzenheiser
OPEDUON DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE:1 "=50 •. MAY 13, 1991
RITCHIE SURVEYS -
WINCHESTER.- YI R6 I N I A
_ 1
avin J. tic Pamela R. Mullen
Corti f_iitd Correct. TD
t-1. t�i-j
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directoy
RE: Informal Discussion with John Stevens; Possible Rezoning From B-1 to B-2
DATE: February 28, 1995
Attached is a copy of a fax received from Mr. John Stevens requesting time on the Planning
Commission's agenda. Mr. Stevens is interested in rezoning a 3.21 acre parcel located on
the east side of Route 11 south of Middletown from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to B-2
(Business General).
The parcel is surrounded by RA (Rural Areas) zoning. The intended use, as stated by Mr.
Stevens, is an art gallery and framing shop. The Standard Industrial Classification Manual
lists, among others, the following as Major Use Group , isce aneousetail: art dealers -
retail, picture frames - ready made - retail, consigned merchandise, objects of art/antique -
retail. It is the staff's position that an art gallery/framing shop would fall under this heading
and therefore be considered a B-2 use.
The staff feels that if Business General zoning is to be considered at this location, it would
need to be limited in scope.
KCT\bah
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
02/23/95 17:48 V703 665 5433 SHENANDOAH UNIV. 10 001
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
DEPT. OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
KRIS C. TIERNEY, AICP
PLEASE ADD THIS REZONING REQUEST TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 15, 1995.
PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF MIDDLETOWN ACROSS FOR BELL GROVE.
FORMALLY A RESTAURANT, HONKY TONK, NAMED COVERED WAGON.
PREVIOUS NAMES. BATTLE OF THE 19TH, WOODSHED, ETC.
DEED BOOK 633
ADDRESS 8437 VALLEY PIKE
UNDER REAL ESTATE CONTRACT PENDING APPROVAL FOR A ART GALLERY AND
FRAMING SHOP CONTINGENT ON OBTAINING A BUSINESS LICENSE OR ZONING.
PRESENT ZONING IS BI TO CHANGE TO B2 WITH PROFFERS LIMITING USE OF
APPROPRIATE USAGE FOR THIS SITE.
THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER
JOHN STEVENS
324 ROUND HILL ROAD
WINCHESTER VA, 22602
H 667-4527
W 665-4925
Location Map for 90--A-55
John Stevens Property
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directory
RE: Informal Discussion with Linden Unger Regarding a Possible Rezoning
DATE: February 27, 1995
Commission members will recall a discussion with Mr. Unger in January concerning the
possibility of rezoning two small parcels of land (totaling roughly one and a third acres)
located on the south side of Route 522 North from B-2 (Business General) to RP
(Residential Performance).
At that time there was confusion over the location of the two parcels (53-A-55 and 62) and
the surrounding zoning. The staff has since resolved both issues. The parcels are deeded
separately, and are listed separately in the real estate records, however, they appeared as
a single parcel that was labeled as 95-A-55 on our tax maps.
The configuration of the parcels is shown on an attached plat. The parcels are adjoined on
the east and west, by parcels which are zoned B-2 and front on Route 522. Parcel 55
adjoins RP (Residential Performance) zoning to the south.
Staff feels that the trend in this area will be toward additional business zoning and not to
residential development.
A vicinity map is attached.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Attachment
KCT\bah
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
c)j
;5j-4— -,6,-
s%y 4:19 Fac[ 83 '
WILLIAM R. PEACEMAKER S32'37'
D 8j-S220—P. 293 15.90' 1
II
N LINDEN B. t COLLEEN
U; CU F. UNGER
tip D. S. 311— P. 300 p'
V g � 7 JUNE 1965 ` ��� rner.,
_ Qom_ 1.357 AC.
CIO ev
R/W LINE
@� n> THIS DEED
b 0 60' 0 W �. 'too cr
Z) PARCEL 8 LARRY A. STROBRIDGE / I
PARCEL A—D.B-338—P.183 D.8.336 /P. 183
-- __R/W 11NF---
/ D. 8. 336-P. 183
THIS 0.20 ACRE TRACT IS TO BE COWEYED TO .`V A I A�-�E GRANTED
LIADEN 13. S COLLEEN F. UKGER AND IS TO BE
-TOWED WITH AND BECOME A PART OF THE 1.357
ACFZ TRACT IN DEED BOOK 311 PAGE 300,The above I.1at is a Survey of the Remaining Portion of the Land -
Tract r:o. 18 - conveyed to Fred Eugene Unger by Deed dated 13 June 1967
in heed _"ook 332 Fage G79 (Also Deed Eook 270 rage 496). The said Land
fronts the Southwestern'Highway Boundary Line o: U. S. '•t. 522, just
'northwest of the City of Winchester, in Gainesboro District, Frederick
County, Virginias
Beginning at a point in the Southwestern Highway Boundary Line, a
corner to the Peacemaker Land, running with the Southeastern Line of the
said Land S 320 37- W - 15.90 ft. to a corner to the Linden B. L Colleen
F. Gnaer Land; thence with the Eastern Line of the said Lard S 130 40- E
1616.00 ft. -to a point in tho Northwestern Line of the Strobridgr_ Land,
also the Center Line of the 60.0 Ft. iV.;; thence with the said Linc
r: 320 37- E - 130.17 ft. to a point in the Southwestern Highway Loundary
Line; thence with the said Line N 570 10; W - 119.98 ft. to the beginning.
no shown on the Plat are the ",^ Lines in Deed r'` `-
Book 311 [age 300 & Deed Dook 336 Page 183 AND THE
r;/11 LINE TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THIS SURVEY. ;Y•_�
Containing - - - 0.20 Acres. t
Surveyed - - - - December 11, 1974.
V1nO NIA TRfDTniCK COUNTY, SCT, V
l
Tn., in,vum55nt of wnUn/� ! .r
/.c. iG . r' r7) s wo. oroOuaA to 6yy w
at
and with aru C"" of xMhowlaAgm.nt IMn tO o
W ,�<or0. nM>tb wu.dmltypd
Location Map for 53--A-55 & 62
Unger Property
Streamlining - Site Plan Review Process
The site plan review process has increasingly become an important tool in guiding land
development in Frederick County. While standards which ensure that development occurs in an
orderly and safe manner have become more complete, the review process has become more
complex. The Department of Planning and Development recognizes the need to improve
development review processes in order to maintain a healthy balance between the needs of the
development community and the general public. Streamlining approval procedures have become a
top priority. It is the goal of the County to implement an ideal review process that encourages
quality plans and development, efficient and timely reviews, and a better relationship between
applicants and reviewers.
Examination of Site Plan Reviews and Approvals
In May of 1994, the Department of Planning and Development began the task of streamlining the
Frederick County site plan review process. While this task is still underway, it began by taking
an inventory of site plans approved in the past (from 1990) and plans that were currently in the
pipeline. This "snapshot" of the process gives a good indication of where obstacles may exists
and how the process can be improved. Factors that were examined include the number of
agencies involved in the process, the number of site plans that were approved in a given year, and
the average length of time it took for a site plan to be approved. The results of this examination
are attached to this report (see Attachment B), however, highlights from the study are summarized
below:
• The median time from when a completed application for a site plan was received by the Planning
Department and when a site plan was approved was 31 days in 1994. In 1990, the median time was
83 days.
• In 1994, the time for agencies to review and comment on a site plan ranged between one (1) and
twenty-nine (29) days for site plans (including revisions). Without the need for revisions, the time
ranged between one (1) and twenty (20) days. In 1990, this time ranged between one (1) and forty-six
days (46) with revisions and between one (1) and eighteen (18) days without revisions.
• The average time it took for an agency to review a site plan and to ensure all comments were
addressed was 21 days. (This number includes site plans reviewed from 1990 to the present.)
Based upon the historical survey of reviews and approvals, the site plan review process has
improved significantly since 1990. The time for agencies to review and provide comments, for
example, reduced an average of 17 days. Part of this reduction in time was due to the County's
decision to bring in their own County Engineer in 1991. Prior to 1991, complete site plan
applications were forwarded to a consulting engineer in Fairfax, Virginia for comments before the
planning staff formally reviewed and approved them. This process added a minimum of a week to
the review process. Now the County Engineer reviews site plans simultaneously with other review
agencies.
Examining the history of site plan approval has uncovered more opportunities to improve the
current site plan review process. When possible, site plan reviews should be conducted concurrent
with other reviews. Also, the amount of revisions submitted needs to be reduced as well as reviews
conducted outside departmental agencies.
Streamlining - Site Plan Review Process
County and State Review Agencies
The County and State agencies that are part of the site plan review process have also been involved
in the streamlining effort. Representatives from the County Departments of Engineering,
Inspections, Fire and Rescue, and Planning, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
and the Sanitation Authority, met in July, 1994 to openly discuss the site plan process and where
problems arise. The problems that they discussed include:
• Agencies often have too little time to devote to reviewing site plans.
• Information that is necessary for proper review is often missing from the site plan.
• Review agencies would like to make reviews concurrent with Planning and Development's review.
Issues and information regarding a site plan would be more readily available and easier to discuss if
Planning and Development conducted a review simultaneously with other departments.
• There are no set guidelines or design standards to indicate agency requirements included within the
site plan application. More information or references would help applicants draft a complete site
plan.
• In general, applicants who are not aware of what is required take more time because of revisions.
Some suggestions that the representatives made include:
• Making more use of the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Presently, this committee, which
consists of representatives from each review agency, meet bi-monthly to discuss any preliminary site
plan at the applicant's request. The TRC could be utilized to reject or approve minor site plans
during one scheduled meeting.
• Conduct workshops for design firms that discuss County requirements for site plans.
• All agencies should review the application checklists and incorporate information that they require.
• Instead of waiting for a complete application, reviews conducted by Planning and Development
should be concurrent with all other review agencies.
The Development Community
In efforts to include all opinions of the County's site plan review process, letters were sent to the
development community asking them how the process could be improved. Only one agency
responded. Their comments were:
• The Department of Planning and Development should become a review agency in which comments
are made at the same time as other review agencies.
• Site plans should be reviewed within two weeks of submission. If no comments are received by the
applicant in two weeks, then the applicant or engineer will assume that no revisions are needed.
• The Department of Planning and Development should have one staff member who is responsible and
who has the authority to review and approve site plans.
• The Technical Review Committee (TRC) should be utilized to approve or reject site plans during
their meetings.
Streamlining - Site Plan Review Process
Staff Recommendations
The examination of past site plan reviews and the comments from County and State agencies
reveal similar obstacles in the site plan review process. Suggestions to remove or lessen these
obstacles will involve modifications in three areas of the current process: information contained
within the site plan application package, the review process itself, and the Frederick County
Ordinance that governs the process.
Site Plan Application
The site plan application should consist of a more detailed description of the requirements and
steps involved in a site plan review. This will help eliminate the uncertainty of what is required by
the review agencies and thus reduce the amount of applications that need to be revised and
resubmitted. Also, if changes have occurred within the site plan review process they should be
reflected in the written materials available for the applicant.
1. Include checklists from all agencies who are involved with the review process.
2. Include written material that reference the various departments, contact person(s), telephone
and fax numbers, and mailing addresses.
3. Include pamphlet(s) that provide the resources used by the agencies for site plan review.
4. Include a time frame that indicates a reasonable estimate of the site plan review process.
5. For tracking purposes, comment sheets should include a record of when a site plan has been
received, reviewed, and sent back to the applicant.
6. Eliminate the language of a required preliminary review conference.
7. Include the Department of Planning and Development as a review agency.
8. Include the option for applicants to discuss and apply, at their own risks, for land disturbance
and footing permits concurrent with the submittal of a site plan application. Applicants must
3
Streamlining - Site Plan Review Process
submit grading and building plans to the Departments of Public Works and Inspections for
approval.
The creation of a site plan application package that includes a complete checklists from all review
agencies involved, will help reduce the applicant's uncertainty of what is required. In turn, the
applicant will be able to submit complete plans and reduce the number of revisions needed.
The Site Plan Review Process
The steps of the current site plan review process are attached to this report (see Attachment A).
Some informal modifications have occurred over the past year, however these changes have not
been formally indoctrinated. For instance, the Department of Planning and Development will
review site plans before formal applications are submitted. Some recommendations to consider
that will help expedite and encourage quality site plans include:
Establish review deadlines for review agencies. During a streamlining meeting held on
February 16, 1995, representatives from the Departments of Planning and Development, Fire
and Rescue, Public Works, Inspections, and the Sanitation Authority committed to a review
turnaround of 15 working days.
2. Negotiate a shorter review time period for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
serving the Staunton District. VDOT recently extended their review time in this district from
30 to 60 days. Other VDOT districts such as Northern Virginia and Richmond have review
time frames that are consistent with the each county's review requirement in which they serve.
3. Formally make reviews conducted by the Department of Planning and Development concurrent
with other agency reviews.
4. Begin the site plan application process as soon as site plans are submitted for comment review.
Instead of waiting for a complete application, the Department of Planning and Development
will be considered a review agency and will review site plans as soon as they are submitted. If
all the required information is provided on the site plan, the staff will accept the site plan,
conduct a review, and provide comments within 15 days. Fees for site plan reviews will be
paid before any review is conducted.
Include a step within the process that scans site plans for completeness prior to review. If site
plans do not include all the information that is required or indicated on the application
checklists, the site plan will not be accepted and immediately returned to the applicant. This
will reduce time spent on reviewing plans that are incomplete.
6. Consider charging an additional fee for reviewing site plans revised for the second time. Fees
need to reflect the time that staff spends on reviewing site plan
Streamlining - Site Plan Review Process
7. The Planning Commission should consider granting the Planning Department staff the
authority to approve site plans.'
8. Recognize the Technical Review Committee as an important tool for expediting site plans.
9. Consider requiring Applicants who wish to utilize the Technical Review Committee to receive
immediate comments would be required to submit site plans one or two weeks prior to the next
scheduled TRC meeting.
Frederick County Ordinance
The ordinance can be an effective tool and design guide for applicants. Where it is necessary, the
Board of Supervisors should consider amending the County ordinance to accommodate the above
recommendations. Revisions should also be made to ensure that the ordinance reflects the current
site plan process. Consider updating the following sections of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance:
a) Update Chapter 165, Section 129(A) and 129(H) of the Zoning Ordinance to reflect
current requirements.
Chapter 165, Section 129(A); The Applicants shall submit fifteen (15five (5) copies of the
site plan to the Zoning Administrator, along with completed application materials required
by the Zoning Administrator. Prior to official submission, the applicant may submit a site
plan to the Zoning Administrator for an initial review by the staff Final approval of the site
plan shall be given by the Zoning Administrator.
Chapter 165, Section 129(H); Approval of the site plan shall expire within "months (60)
months of the approval date unless building permits have been obtained for construction.
b) Update Site Plan Review Process graphic on page 16657 to reflect current process.
Future Considerations
As development continues in Frederick County, so will the need for more innovative review
processes. The County should consider and plan for public information management systems
which will allow County and State review agencies to communicate in real time through the use of
computers. This will reduce the time spent in tracking comments on site plans and the time spent
delivering them.
' The Planning Commission decided on March 1, 1995 that site plans no longer have to appear on the Bi-
monthly report before they are approved. In essence, this gives the Planning Department staff the
authority to administratively approve site plans.
E
Streamlining - Site Plan Review Process
Conclusion
The above recommendations are not all inclusive, however, they do lay the groundwork for
streamlining the site plan review process. The goal of this examination is to identify a process that
produces quality plans in a time period that benefits the development community and the County as
a whole.
M
Attachment A - Current Site Plan Review Process
When is a site plan needed?
The site review process begins whenever an individual or corporation wishes to develop a use within the business
or industrial zoning districts, the EM Extractive Manufacturing District or the HE Higher Education District.
Frederick Courcy also requires a site plan for any development which includes multifamily residential uses,
automobile parking spaces that will be shared by more than one establishment, convalescent and nursing homes,
and public and semipublic uses and buildings. A more descriptive list of uses that require site plans is available
in Chapter 165, Section 128 of the Code of Frederick County.
Steps for Approval
Once it is determined that a site plan is required, there are seven general steps that are necessary for approval
Sten One: Preliminary Review Conference:
During the preliminary review, the applicant and a County Planner have the opportunity to discuss the site plan in
relation to County requirements. Here, the planner can offer instructions on what information will be necessary to
complete the application.
Step Two: Completiniz the Application:
The applicant or a representative can complete the application package. The package itself, consists of forms,
checklist, and comment sheets to be sent to the necessary review agencies. The forms requests basic information
about the site such as location, zoning, and proposed use. The checklist details specific information that is
required to be included on the site plan itself. To reduce the need for revisions, it is important that the applicant
inform the engineer or developer of these requirements. The applicant must send the appropriate comment sheets
and copies of the site plans to all relevant agencies for review. Each agency will return the comment sheets to the
applicant with instructions or comments. An agency may require revisions to be made. In this case, the applicant
must resubmit the site plan to that agency for review. Once all final comments are returned to the applicant, the
complete application package may be submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department.
Step Three: Submission of the Site Plan
The complete application should include all comment sheets from the appropriate agencies, completed forms, and
four copies of the site plan. The site plans should be prepared by a certified engineer, architect, or surveyor and
should meet all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The County Planner in charge of site
plans will review the plan to insure that all the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are met.
Sjgp Four: Payment of Fees
Before a site plan application can be accepted, the applicant must pay the fee for a site plan review. The fee is
determined by the scale of the development or use (Minor site plan, non-residential site plans, or residential site
plans.)
1
Attachment A - Current Sit.- Plan Ravi. -t4, Prnracc
Step Five: Planning Commission and Bi -Monthly Report
A. All completed site plan applications submitted to the Frederick County Planning Department are placed on file
and listed on the Planning Commission's bi-monthly report. A site plan is listed from the day it was submitted
until the plan receives final approval. The Frederick County Planning Commission reserves the right to request a
formal review of any site plan listed on the bi-monthly report. The Frederick County Zoning Administrator may
also request that the Planning Commission review the site plan due to the scale, intensity, and potential impact of
the proposed development. If no formal review is requested by the Planning Commission, the Zoning
Administrator may proceed with final approval of the site plan.
B. If the Frederick County Planning Commission requests to review a site plan listed on the bi-monthly report, the
applicant is responsible for seeing that all required materials are completed and filed with the County Planner at
least 12 days prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting if the site plan is to be placed on the agenda.
Step Six: Final Approval
Once a site plan meets all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and requirements that may
result from a review by the Planning Commission, the site plan will receive final approval.
Step Seven: Final Certificate of OccupancX
After all the site development is complete, the applicant must contact the County Planner in charge of the site plan
to arrange an inspection of the site. The inspection is necessary to insure that all requirements shown on the
approved site plan are complete. If the development meets all requirements, a final certificate of occupancy is
issued.
2
Attachment B - Time Frame of Site Plan Reviews
The chart titled "Site Plan Review: Time Frame," displays a cross-section of site plans reviewed from 1990 to
1994. The purpose of the chart is to examine the time frame from when a site plan is introduced into the review
process until it is finally approved. Five or six site plans from each year were chosen based on their diversity
from one another. The chart includes all the steps for approval explained on the previous page. One change has
occurred to the site plan review process since 1991 that is not reflected in the "steps for approval." Prior to 1991,
once an applicant submitted a complete site plan package to the Planning Department, the site plan was
forwarded to a consulting engineer for comments before the department reviewed and approved it. This often
added several weeks to the review process. This process changed with site plan #008-91. Site plans are now
reviewed by the County's Engineer in Public Works as part of the agency review (reviewed before the application
package is officially submitted to the planning department.) Other departments were also added for possible
review: the Towns of Middletown and Stephens City, and the Soil and Water Conservation District.
Time Frame Analysis
It should be noted that much of the information that is needed to do an extensive analysis is missing. Tracking
records often do not show when a site plan is submitted to a review agency for comment. Also, each revision was
not recorded, making it hard to determine the actual time a site plan was in the possession of Planning
Department for review.
Planning Staff and Planning Commission Review
The total time from when a completed application for a site plan was given to the Planning Department for review
and when a site plan was approved ranged from 1990-1994 as follows:
1990: Between 36 and 249 days.
The median was 83 days. , -
1991: Between 25 and 133.days.
The median was 44 days.
1992: Between 35 and 101 days:
The median was 48 days.
1993: Between 3 and i79 days.
The median was58 days.
1994: Between 5 and 77 days.
The median was 31 days.
Forwarding the site plan package to a consulting engineer added a minimum of 15 days to the process. In one
case (site plan #001-90), this step added at least 160 days until the site plan was approved due to revisions. (This
accounts for the high range to 249 days in 1990.)
Attachment I- lime Frame of SitePlan Reviews
Agency Review
The total time for departments or agencies to review a site plan and add comments ranged for the same years as
follows:
The average time it takes for each department to review a site plan is as follows:
Revisions
The amount of revisions that each department requires lengthens the time it takes for a site plan to be approved.
Because each revision to a department was not recorded, the total time was calculated from the first time the site
plan was submitted to a department to the time when it was finally approved by each department. Also, it may be
the case that a department requested a revision, but was recorded in the file as approval on the original.
Based on the information given:
50% of VDOTs'.comments required revisions.
.44% of Sanitation's comments required revisions.
7% of the Fire Marshal's comments required revisions.'
4,3% of the consulting engineer's comments required. revisions.
53% of the County Engineer's comments required revisions.
0
Attachment B - 17me Frame for Site Plan Reviews
Overall, the time it takes for a complete site plan application to be approved has been reduced over the past five
years. It appears that most of the time is consumed by revisions required by VDOT and Public Works. This is
not to say that these revisions are not necessary. In most cases, the time period for approval was very reasonable.
k,
Proposed
Use
iD #
Sent to
Agencies
VDOT
ays
. Sanitation
- ys
Building
Inspection
Days
Fire
Marshall
Days
public
Works•
ays
Health
Department
Days
Application Staff ays 61 -Monthly Days Approved Total
Received Review Days
Notes
Ryder Truck
Stephenson
life Christian
001-90
006-90
009-90
12-28-89
7-16-90
2-07-90
4-23-90
R -
R 41
R
7-17.89
1-04-90
10-31-89
7
-
1-05-90
1.02-90
-
8
8-16-89
12-28 9
2-06-90
2
11
7-05-80
3-16-90
3-02-90
R
R 42
15
906.89
12.05-89
12-14-89
2' -
0290
2-15-90
8-20-90
4-19-90
249
76
Georgetown
012-90
1-11.90
2-26-90
R 46
2-23-90
R 43
1-29-90
18
1-16-90
5
3-20-90
22
1-11-90
1
_
2-26-90
9-17-90
90
Fleet
Auto Laundry
020-90
021-90
_
-
2-05-90
3-15-90
R -
R -
3.16-90
4-03-90
R
R -
2-20-90
3-01-90
-
-
3.14_90
2-02-90
_
-
4-25-90
4-24-90
40
27
-
_
-
_
3-16-90
4-03-90
6-09-90
5-18-90
5-10-90
103
63
36
Sheetz _
Giaize
Win Cntry Club
002-91
003-91
004-91
11-30-90
1-23-91
9-26-90
-
-
1-22-91
R 53
11-30-90
2-05-91
1
13
1-17-91
2-05-91
22
13
1-31-91
2-05-91
1-31-91
2-05-91
1
1
2-20-94
15
2-25-91
4-02-91
25
56
(BZR 3-19-91)
10-31-90
R 35
2-19-91
KGF Beverage
Youth Center
013-91
020-91
5-14-90
6-05-91
1-02-92
R 22
R
5-14-91
9-18-91
t
5-15-91
6-24-92
1
R 68
7-11-91
6-26-92
R 58
R-
--
6-07.91
9-12-91
1-09-92 (R)
10-02-91
3-26 91
7-15-91
6-26-92
35
38
133
Wetlands
Gromling Office
Hershey Pasta
Weight Scale
Albin Ridge
Salvation Army
Valley Protein
001-92
002-92
004-92
011-92
020-92
022-92
71-19-91
1-30-92
5-05-92
8-13-92
11-04-92
1-08-92
1-31-92
2-04-92
6-12-92
8-13-93
11-04-92
R 50
-
5
38
R 365.
7
1-08-92
9-08-92
-
12-02-92
11-25-92
R
-
R 93
21
11-22-91
t-24-92'
1-30-92
5-11-926
9-18-92
12-02-92
3
-
1
36
28
1-05-92
12-09-91
_
5-11-92
9-29-92
12-04-92
47
-
-
6
47
30
2-21-92
2-06-92
-
6-11-92
1-25-93
11-20-92
R 94
R -
37
R 45
16
_
_
12-18-92
2-01-93•'
_
-
19
93
1-03-92
1-13-92
-
2-20-92
6-11-92
12-03-92
12-16-92
1-03-92
7-08-92 (R)
2-01-93
7
1
7-75-92
3-04-92
1-06-93
12
12
21
2-25-92
2-25-92
4-0392
7-19.92
3-14-94
2-25-93
53
45
42
35
101
71
--
Garage
Distributor
Fire Company
Garage
Care
Dodson
010-93
014-93
015-93
020-936-28-93
022-93
027-93
1-21-93
4-06-93
Ti 55-03-9-933
6-30-93
6-07-93
1-25-93
4-09-93
_
7-26-93
7-22-93
4
3
-
26
R 45
1_21.93
6-29-93
9-10-93
1
1
R 72
1-21-93
4-12-93
5.10-93
7-15-93
7-15-93
6-07-93
1
6
7
17
15
1
1-29-93
4-28-93
5-1 t-93
7-02-93
6-30-93
6-28-93
4
22
8
4
12
20
3-01-93
4-21-93
5.18-93
7-05-93
8-26-93
R 47
15
R 15
`
5
R 80
-
4-09-93
5-06-93
-
-
6-08-93
-
3
3
-
2
3-23-93
5-25-93
5-19-93
6-23-93
6-29-93
7-21-93
4-01-93
5-25-93
5-25-93 (R)
7-15-93
9-10-93(R)
8-30-93
9
1
6
1
1
4
4-07.93
7-77-93
7-21-93
8-04-93
5-28-93
5-28-93
5-48.93
8-12-93
9-16-93
9-08-93
66
3
9
50
79
49
Valley Protein 001-94
Reg Health 002-94 12-15-93
Foodmaker 003-94 12-05-93
Corrugated 006-94 1-26-94
Albin Ridge 007-94 1-25-94
Hager's Spa Oto -94 4-07-94
unng the years t9 and up to site plan #05771.
12-08-93 12-09-93
1-03-94 19 12-20-93 5 1-05-94 21 12-22-93 7
12-16-93 t 12-22-93 7 12-22-93 7
1-28-94 2 2-11-94 16 5-06-94 (R) 26
1-28-94 3 2.14-94 20 2-08-94 14
4-13-94 6 4-08-94 1 4-08-94 1
complete site plan applications were orwarded to a consulting engineer. A ter #
12-23-93 11-29-93
1-11-94 26
2-02-94 7
2-23-94 R 29 -
4-12-94 5 -
1. site plans were sent to the
-
-
ounty
1-05-94 2-24-94 (R) 50
1-04-94 1-26-94 29
1-24-94 2-7-94 14
2-22-94 4-05-94 (R) 42
3-01-94 3-11-94 10
4-13-94 1
ncineer a nna t of fha 3-,-- „ .o.
2-02-94
2-02-94
2-16-94
3-16-94
3-16-94
4-0611-1 -94
29
23
22
15
2-25-94
2-03-94
2-25-94
5-10-94
3-22-94
4-18-94
50
30
32
77
21
S
--•••• ,, .,•••_•, _-,mow ——weroeu to me state control Water Board.
R or (R) = Revisions