Loading...
PC 11-15-95 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia NOVEMBER 15, 1995 f,- �,,, -/ 14 W9j;,/ � l 7:00 P.M CALL TO ORDER TAR 1) Meeting Minutes of October 4, 1995 .................................... A 2) 3) 4) BimonthlyReport .............................................. Activity Report .................. . CitizenComments ....................... .......................... D 5) Valley Mill Subdivision Application #013-95 to subdivide 17.20 acres for a 21 lot single family subdivision located in the Stonewall Magisterial District and identified with PIN 55-A-176. (Mr. Miller) ...................................................... E 6) Informal Discussion regarding the Round Hill Plan. (Mr. Tierney) ..................................................... F 7) Informal discussion regarding WhiteHall Business Park Master Development Plan. (Mr. Wyatt) ..................................................... G 8) Other ............................................................... H MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on October 4, 1995. PRESENT= Planning - . -Prs present were - Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Terry Stone, Gainesboro District -staff W=nt_Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MI TER OF EPTEMB R 6, 1995 Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of the September 6, 1995 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. 2 Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRR ) - 9/28/95 Mtg. Mr. Wyatt reported that the DRRS discussed issues associated with creating a vested rights policy for Frederick County. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) - 9/25/95 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the CPPS received a mixed reaction to the proposals presented at the Round Hill Community meeting held on September 25, 1995. Mrs. Copenhaver said that Kris Tierney of the Planning staff did an excellent job of handling the public meeting. She commended him on the way he answered questions and kept the meeting on track. Mr. Romine said that the Commission is working on an Enterprise Zone for downtown Winchester, they are working on some programs with Dowell J. Howard and Lord Fairfax Community College, they've established a plastics recycling and purchasing consortium, and they are working on the Shell building. 9 Sanitation Authority - 10/04/95 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Parkins Mill enlargement is on hold. She also reported that the Sanitation Authority approved a bid on their proposed administration building. Application #011-95 of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 10 and 11, to subdivide 15.4738 acres for a 34 lot subdivision consisting of single-family housing. This property is located east of Stephens City and north of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 8 and 9, and is identified with PIN 75-A-72 in the Opequon District. Action - Approved with Contingency Mr. Miller said that the County Engineer has recommended that additional work be done on erosion and sediment control and that storm water management issues be addressed. He said that the County Engineer has also suggested that individual site plans be submitted for Lots 198-203, 207, 208, and 210. Mr. Miller said that it has been suggested that the requirement for a detailed site plan be printed on individual subdivision plats. He added that there was an approved MDP for this property. Commissioners inquired as to when the connection to Wythe Avenue in Fredericktowne Estates would be completed and Mr. Miller said that it was currently under construction. Some of the Commissioners felt this issue was a concern because Westmoreland was the only access into the back sections of Fredericktowne at this time. It was pointed out by the Commission that the MDP for this subdivision was approved approximately seven to nine years ago and a number of changes to the standards of the ordinance have taken place since this was approved. Commissioners noted that when Sections 7, 8, and 9 were approved several months ago, they specified that future sections would have to comply with current design standards. It was pointed out that Section 11 had numerous lots in the 9,000 - 10,000 square foot range and Lot 193 in Section 10 had 10,169 square feet and these sections would have to comply with current curb and gutter requirements. 4 The open space easements were also discussed. Mr. Miller said that the open space easement that was approved for this development was not understood by many of the property owners in the other sections of this development and was a potential problem. He said that the drawings and plats for this subdivision will need to clearly show the boundary of the open space easement on each lot as being the rear setback line. Mr. Miller said that the applicant advises that this is what he desires. The alignment of Warrior Drive was also discussed. Mr. Tierney explained that the connection from the Village at Sherando heading north will not go through Fredericktowne, but will go east across the Park's property. Mr. Tierney noted that at this time, there is no commitment by anyone to build the section as it exits Village at Sherando at Parcel 135 onto the Park's property. It was noted that once this road was developed, it would certainly expedite traffic north and south. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the consulting engineers for this project, was present to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioners felt that since it had been several years since the new design standards in the subdivision ordinance dealing with curb and gutters were approved, they believed those standards should be enforced. Commissioners also felt the connection to Wythe was critical. They noted that Westmoreland Avenue was becoming crowded and somewhat dangerous with all the traffic going in and out of Fredericktowne Estates through this one entrance. They felt there should be some assurances that Wythe would be completed, otherwise, they felt the problem would be badly compounded. Mr. Romine made a motion to approve the subdivision and this motion was seconded by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Thomas next moved to amend Mr. Romine's motion so that approval would be contingent on the subdivision application meeting the current design standards of the subdivision ordinance. This was seconded by Mr. Light and the motion to the amend Mr. Romine's motion was approved by the following majority vote: YES- to amend the original morin: Ours, Morris, Thomas, Romine, Marker, Copenhaver, Light NO: Shickle, Wilson, DeHaven k, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve the Subdivision Application #{011-95 of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 10 and 11, contingent on the subdivision meeting the current design standards of the subdivision ordinance, by the following majority vote: YES (to approve with amended =Lion): Light, Copenhaver, Marker, Thomas, Morris, Ours NO: DeHaven, Wilson, Romine, Shickle Subdivision Application #012-95 of Winchester -Frederick County I.D.C., Inc. to establish a 24,048 square foot lot (0.552 acre) to be utilized as a regional storm water management facility. This property is located on the northeast corner of Shady Elm Road (Rt. 65 1) and Industrial Drive (Rt. 880), and is identified with PIN 63 -A -60B in the Back Creek District. Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that there is an approved master development plan for this property. Mr. Miller said that the major issues associated with this proposal are the design of the facility and the long term maintenance of the facility. He said that an agreement between the entity responsible for the long term maintenance and Frederick County will be required to insure the maintenance is accomplished. Mr. Bruce Edens, with Greenway, Inc., was representing this application. Mr. Edens said that this storm water management basin will serve the ten acres (4 lots) that the Commission subdivided a couple months ago belonging to Mr. Dawson. He said that it will not serve any other part of the industrial park. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Subdivision Application #012-95 of Winchester -Frederick County I.D.C., Inc. to establish a 24,048 square foot lot to be utilized as a regional storm water management facility with the requirement that a storm water management facility maintenance agreement be submitted to the County for approval. M The 1996-1997 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt presented the 1996-1997 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Mr. Wyatt identified the projects that were funded and removed from last year's plan. The projects removed were Macedonia Church Road (Rt. 642) from Oak Ridge Drive (Rt. 103 1) to Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522); Shawnee Drive (Rt. 652) from Valley Pike (Rt. 11) to the Winchester City limits; and Canterburg Road (Rt. 636) from Salem Church Road (Rt. 735) to Grim Road (Rt. 640). He said that Incidental Construction projects removed included Apple Pie Ridge Road, Hollow Road, Fletcher Road, Back Creek Road, Glaize Orchard Road, and Adams Road. Mr. Wyatt next identified the new road improvement projects that were incorporated into the plan. Those projects included Project #26, Carters Lane (Rt. 629) from Marlboro Road (Rt. 631) to Germany Road (Rt. 625) as a hard surface project and Project #19, Adams Road (Rt. 689) from Siler Road (Rt. 600) to Brush Creek Road (Rt. 600), under incidental construction. Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT recommended that Adams Road should only be included as an incidental construction project and not a hard surface road project because not all of the right-of-way was available at this time. Mr. Wyatt said that if the road is placed on the plan as a hard surface project, it would take several years for it to move up the list as an advertised project. In light of this, he said that the staff was recommending that it be placed on the list anyway, as there should be plenty of time to secure all the necessary right-of-way. Mr. Wyatt presented several letters and petitions from County citizens associated with the road improvement projects discussed. Commissioners discussed the issue of the amount of time it took for roads to move up on the list and that the projected completion dates for some of projects that were desperately needed were well into the future. Mr. Sager pointed out that the 6,295 ADT Count for Route 647 was already two years old and a more realistic count for that road was probably 7,800 ADT per day. Mr. Sager said that where VDOT located the counter is another issue. He said that the road was just recently counted and the counter was placed north of McDonald's instead of near the intersection. He said that the Route 647 project remains at #4, however, the year of completion was changed from 1998 and to 2002. Mr. Sager said that in the year 2002, this road is projected 7 to have 15,000 ADT per day. Mr. Sager expressed concern that the County continues to build, continues to move forward with site plans, continues to address additional businesses and the County was out of roadway. He said that it is becoming a safety issue. Mr. Sager felt that the County was becoming so far behind in transportation improvements, that something needed to be done, and other Commissioners agreed. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the 1996-1997 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County with the addition of Adams Lane as No. 27 on the Hard Surface Section of the Plan and to include the letters from County citizens as part of the official record. Rezoning Application #001-95 of Wayne R. Ridgeway to rezone 2.047 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition). This property is located on US Route 522, just south of the intersection of Bryarly Road (Rt. 789), and is identified as PIN 42-A-249 in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommended Denial Mr. Tierney said that the applicant is proposing retail hardware and small equipment sales and rental. Mr. Tierney said that the property is within the Albin Community Center, however, the Comprehensive Plan does not designate specific policies for Albin as far as promoting or discouraging commercial development. He said that this first came before the Commission in May of `95 and was tabled at the applicant's request due to concerns about the lack of an approved health system, a number of uses that were potentially viable given the existing proffers at the time, and also whether an adequate water supply was available. He said that the application was also tabled on August 2, again, at the applicant's request. Mr. Tierney said that subsequent to the previous meetings, the applicant has now obtained an approved septic permit which is designed for four employees, the proffers have been revised such that the uses that would be permitted are specific for general merchandise hardware store and equipment and truck rental. A preliminary_ plan was submitted showing the general layout (parking, entrance location, buffering) of the site. Mr. Tierney said that with the provision of this additional information, the main question remaining is whether an adequate water source exists. He said that this question D would need to be addressed prior to site plan approval. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the consulting engineers for this application, said that the site layout shows a 1,500 square foot building with the Proposed truck rental area and drain field area. Mr. Gyurisin felt that a water source will not be a problem; a permit has been applied for to drill a well on the site. He added that this lot has frontage on both Routes 522 and 789 and his plan shows entrances on both roads. Mr. Wayne R. Ridgeway, the applicant, was also present to answer questions. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition to the requested rezoning: Mr. Conrad Christianson, Pastor representing the adjoining Bethel Luthren Church, was opposed for the following reasons: 1) it would change the residential character of the Albin community, which has a long history; 2) considerable site work would need to be done before the property could be utilized properly; and 3) it may create further drainage problems for the parsonage, which has experienced water runoff problems in the past. Ms. Barbara E. Kidwell, adjoining property owner, stated that Albin was an old residential community, started in the 1940's. Mrs. Kidwell said that most of the homes in this area are close and this is one of the few open spots in the neighborhood. She said that the few commercial sites established in this area are not within view of the homes in the Albin community. She felt this business would change the rural character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Kidwell was also concerned about: 1) the safety of neighborhood children; 2) that the truck rental would bring many people from many different places and this would impact the safe and quiet nature of the neighborhood; and 3) the entrance on 789 would impact neighborhood traffic. Mr. Ronald Lineweaver, Albin resident, said that his family has lived in the Albin community for 41 years. Mr. Lineweaver said that the families in this community are tight -knit and it's a safe and a healthy environment. He was concerned that the impacts from the proposed business would threaten safety and increase traffic and would push this area into a fast -paced business community. Mr. Robert Hester, adjoining property owner, said that he recently moved from Fairfax to Winchester and he drives 60 miles a day to work, just so he can live within this community. Mr. Hester felt that a business would not have much regard for the residents of the community and it would deteriorate the neighborhood. E Mrs. Sharon Robinson, neighborhood resident, asked if set hours would be established for operation of the business, if rental trucks would be returned to the business 24 hours a day, and if other types of businesses, besides what had been proposed, could be established here in the future. Mrs. Robinson had concerns about safety for neighborhood children, especially since trucks may be being returned at all hours from all parts of the country, and she was also opposed to an entrance on Route 789. Mrs. Robinson said that she would not object to a hardware store with daytime hours, but she strongly objected to truck rentals. Mrs. Cheryl Lineweaver, Albin resident, asked if the Chairman would request all those persons present who were in opposition to the rezoning to please stand. Approximately 25- 30 people stood in opposition. Mr. Joe Lizer , adjoining property owner, said that he operates the Virginia Farm Market along Route 522 and his wife, Lita, operates a beauty salon in Albin. Mr. Lizer felt that Mr. Ridgeway's proposed use of a hardware store would be an asset to the community, but he had reservations with the outdoor storage that would go along with an equipment and truck rental business. Mr. Lau said that Mr. Ridgeway's proposed business, which is located directly before his on Route 522, would need to be 50' back from the property line, the same distance as his business. Mr. Lizer said that there are no buffers or screening at this location and he envisions seeing big, yellow Ryder trucks along Route 522. He felt that Industrial Transition Zoning would be inappropriate for this residential neighborhood. Mr. Raymond Edwards, resident at 327 Bryarly Road for the last 54 years, said that he does not want to see an assortment of U -Haul trailers across from his front yard. Mr. Edwards said that his real concern was the other uses under B3 Zoning that could be established here sometime in the future. Mr. Frank Crosen came forward to speak on behalf of his parents, who live in Albin. Mr. Crosen said that he grew up in this neighborhood and it is just a small community. Mr. Crosen said that as a child, he and his friends would play on the streets. Mr. Crosen said that he did not want to see Ryder rental trucks going up and down the roads that may endanger the safety of his children. He said that Albin is one of the last few communities of its kind in Frederick County and he would like to see it remain that way. Mr. Gyurisin stated that the proffer designates a specific use for the property. Mr. Gyurisin said that the hours of operation will be between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 on Sunday. He said that the setbacks, buffers, and screening for protection of the surrounding properties are shown on the site plan submitted. He said that they have placed the parking for the truck rental along Route 522. Mr. 10 Gyurisin added that they could delete the Route 789 entrance, if the Commission desired. Most of the Commissioners felt that the rural community centers throughout Frederick County were unique and public sentiment was particularly important when considering a request of this nature. They felt that such a large percentage of the community had made its opposition to the rezoning known, they were obligated to consider that fact. Upon motion made by Mr. Shickle and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby deny Rezoning Application #001-95 of Wayne R. Ridgeway to rezone 2.047 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition) by the following majority vote: YES (to_ deny): Light, Copenhaver, Marker, Thomas, Morris, Shickle, Ours JL4: Wilson, Romine, DeHaven Rezoning Application #004-95 of Flying J, Inc. to rezone 3.65 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition). This property is located at the intersection of Interstate 81 and Rest Church Road (Rt. 669), and is identified with PINs 33A -A-1, 33A - A -2, 33A -A-3, 33A -A-6, 33A -A-7, 33A -A-8, 33A -A-9, and 33A -A-10 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Tierney said that the anticipated impacts of the requested rezoning are minimal. The proposed use for the lots to be rezoned is incidental to the main use of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the land rezoned to B3 in 1991 by the Rainbow Group. He said that these lots are the proposed site of a Flying J Travel plaza. He said that the travel plaza can be expected to draw a large number of vehicles off of the interstate, however, the plaza can be constructed, assuming appropriate permits and approvals are obtained, without the approval of the current rezoning request. These lots are not necessary for the use, but rather provide for an unobstructed frontage along Route 669, which is desired by the applicant. Mr. Craig Call, representing Flying J Inc., showed a videotape of a similar Flying J Travel plaza located in Washington Township, near Trenton, New Jersey. Mr. Call said that 11 they are planning to widen Route 669 in front of the facility at their expense. They have also entered into contracts to buy the houses on this site and those will be removed. He said that their estimated annual revenue to the funds of Frederick County is between $225,000 - $275,000; they would expect to remit from $2 Ih million to $3 million per year to the State's transportation fund in fuel taxes; they will spend $4-5 million in construction costs; and they will employ about 100 local employees. Mr. Call said that they are the largest operator of this type of facility in the nation. Mr. Henry Buettner, one of the owners of the Rainbow Group, felt that Flying J would make a good partner in the community. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments. Mr. Tierney presented a letter of endorsement he received from the Winchester - Frederick County Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Center. Mr. Ed Butler, area resident for the past 33 years, said that he lived about 1/4 mile from the site and he didn't feel this was the proper location for this facility. Mr. Butler said that he had major traffic concerns and he spoke of a number of road improvements that would be needed. He said that there was a natural drainage through this area and he was concerned about water runoff. Mr. Butler asked if truck trailers would be washed on site and he questioned the adequacy of a water supply and sewage disposal. Mr. Butler was also concerned about the safety of neighborhood children in light of the increased traffic. He was also concerned about the noise from traffic and from trucks running all during the night. Ms. Pat Franklin, resident on Route 669, also felt that this was not the proper location for a truck stop. Mrs. Franklin was concerned about the safety of neighborhood children who would be walking, riding their bicycles, or boarding school buses; she felt there would be too much traffic and congestion; and she was concerned about noise. She was also concerned about the quality of life for the residents in the subdivisions located to the rear of this site. Mr. Frank Crosen, area resident for the passed 12 years, voiced his concern about the existing traffic congestion in this area. Mr. Crosen was concerned about the effect on residential property values and the noise pollution that would be generated. Ms. Kim Dodd, area resident, asked if this rezoning request would need to go to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. Chairman DeHaven confirmed that it would. Mr. Buettner came back to the podium to clarify which parcels were already zoned 12 B3 and which ones needed rezoning. He stated that there was an orchard located across the street and a farm was located to the south, both of which created natural buffers. He said that all the houses fronting on Route 669 would be removed to provide entrances to this site. Mr. Call also came back to the podium to address some of the concerns of the area residents regarding traffic, noise, and water issues. The Commission felt that the anticipated impacts of rezoning the 3.65 acres on Route 669 were minimal considering that the approximate 24 acres to the rear of the site were already zoned properly for the proposed use. It was noted that the parcels fronting on Route 669 were not necessary for the use, but rather were being used to provide an unobstructed frontage along Route 669. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Rezoning Application #004-95 of Flying J Travel Plaza, Inc. to rezone 3.65 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition) with the proffers submitted by the applicant. This property is located at the intersection of I-81 and Rest Church Road (Rt. 669) and is identified with PINs 33A -A-1, 33A -A-2, 33A -A-3, 33A -A-6, 33A -A-7, 33A -A-8, 33A -A-9, and 33A -A-10 in the Stonewall District. The letter received from the Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Center was made a part of the official record with the approval of this motion. Rezoning Application #005-95 of James T. Wilson to rezone 2.99 acres from B1 (Neighborhood Business) to B2 (Business General). This property is located on the east side of Aylor Road (Rt. 647) and is identified with PINs 74B -5-C, 74-A-104, and 74-A- 105 in the Opequon District. Action - Tabled Until November 1, 1995 Mr. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District Commissioner, said that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this rezoning due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Tierney said that the applicant is proposing a restaurant, car wash, and ice cream or vegetable stand. He said that none of the review agencies had any major concerns. Mr. Tierney said that the property is located within an Urban Development Area and is very near an 13 interstate interchange. He said that properties to the north and south are currently zoned B I. Mr. Tierney stated that the parcels in question are already zoned for Neighborhood Business and the change to General Business would not be expected to create a great number of negative impacts. He said that there were, however, a few uses within the B2 Zone which may not be appropriate for these parcels given their proximity to residential development to the rear of the parcels. He said that the applicant has not proffered out any allowed uses, such as self - storage facilities, automobile dealerships, or gasoline service stations, but has proffered to fund the projected impact to the local Fire and Rescue Company. The staff also had concerns about the wording of the proffer. Mr. Tierney said that based on the wording of the proffer and the uses permitted, the staff was recommending denial. Mr. Sager asked for clarification on VDOT's solution to the Route 647 traffic flow. He thought the proposal directed all traffic on Rt. 647 north and did not allow southbound traffic. Mr. Sager said that this would take all the traffic from that business district out to Macedonia Church Road. Mr. Watkins replied that this is what the WATS study is proposing, but is in no way the final solution. Mr. Thomas asked for clarification of the proffer submitted by the applicant. Mr. Cook, Legal Counsel, stated that the proffer submitted only guarantees that the sum of $550 will be paid to Fire & Rescue for emergency services costs. Mr. Cook said that the proffer statement submitted does not designate specific uses for the property. Mr. James T. Wilson, the applicant, stated that three separate lots with three different owners were involved. Mr. Wilson said that he was leasing two of the properties and he was proposing a different use for each of the three lots. Mr. Wilson said that he met with the DRRS to request a conditional use permit, but it was decided that he needed to rezone the property to B2 to accommodate the uses requested. Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Ms. Dorothy Carriker, adjoining property owner, came forward to speak for herself and for the residents of the Plymm Owens subdivision. Some of the concerns expressed by Ms. Carriker were that: 1) the surrounding property values would be negatively impacted; 2) her homeowner's insurance rates could be affected; 2) increased traffic in an already highly congested, hazardous travel area; 3) safety of school children boarding school buses, no sidewalks; 4) no buffering or screening between residences and business property; 5) nuisance factors such as noise, lights, air pollution, smells; 6) increased storm water runoff, and 7) B2 uses are too 14 intense to be established in a neighborhood with residential and B1 uses. Mrs. Carriker presented a petition with 51 signatures of residents on Harmen Place and Downing Circle in the Plymm Owens subdivision. Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the Plymm Owens petition and a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Carriker were made a part of the official record by unanimous vote. Mr. Sager stated that he lived in Plymm Owens subdivision, but did not sign the petition. He said that he was very concerned, however, about the traffic situation at this location. Ms. Freda Courtney, neighborhood resident, said that she agreed with everything that Mrs. Carriker said and she was also opposed to the rezoning. The Commissioners who are members of the DRRS relayed some of the discussion that took place at their meeting concerning this matter: The DRRS felt a B2 rezoning should not be allowed without specific proffers; the design standards in B2 are much more strict than those in B1 and would actually provide more buffering/screening for the area residents; the unsafe traffic problem in this area needs to be considered; and several of the existing uses along this strip are currently B2 uses, however, they are legal nonconforming uses. Commissioners felt that some B2 uses would be appropriate at this location, such as a small restaurant or an icecream stand, however, they would not be in favor of an open-ended B2 zone. They felt the proffers submitted for this rezoning would need to be very specific. They were concerned about the infrastructure issue and continuing to allow more business uses without work being done on the roads, the traffic, and the congestion. Mention was also made of the existing structure on one of the lots as to whether or not B2 design standards could be met if the rezoning occurred. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby agree to table Rezoning Application #005-95 of James T. Wilson for 30 days to allow the applicant sufficient time to submit a properly -worded proffer statement. Conditional Use Permit #010-95 of Joseph Edmiston for a dog kennel. This property is located at 295 Hollow Road and is identified with PIN 26-4-2-50 in the Back Creek District. 15 Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Miller stated that dog kennels are permitted in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit. Mr. Miller said that the applicant advises that the kennel will only be used for housing and breeding dogs that belong to him and there will be no boarding of dogs not owned by the applicant. Mr. Randall Hamilton, attorney representing Mr. Joseph Edmiston, objected to the staff's recommended Condition #6 which stated, `All dogs housed at the kennel must be controlled so as not to be a nuisance to any adjoining property by either barking or roaming free.' Mr. Hamilton objected to this condition because he felt the Planning Commission should not get into the business of defining a `nuisance.' The staff reworded the condition to read, `All dogs housed at the kennel must be controlled so they do not enter any adjoining property or be heard on any adjoining property.' Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments, but no one came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit X1010-95 of Joseph Edmiston for a dog kennel on property identified as 26-4-50 in the Back Creek District with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. Change of use or expansion of facilities to accommodate this use will require a new conditional use permit. 3. All associated materials and supplies shall be stored inside to insure a neat appearance of the property. 4. All requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Code of Virginia pertaining to dog kennels must be complied with at all times. 5. Only dogs owned by the applicant will be boarded in the kennel at any time. 16 6. All dogs housed at the kennel must be controlled so they do not enter any adjoining property or be heard on any adjoining property. Conditional Use Permit #011-95 of Hardees/Mobil Convenience Center for a restaurant, gas station, and convenience center. This property is located at the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50W) and Ward Avenue (Rt. 1317) and is identified with PIN 53A- 3-83 in the Back Creek District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Miller said that the staff felt there were several major issues associated with this site, such as drainage and storm water management, and site access that would need to be adequately addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Miller said that the City of Winchester has agreed to provide sewer service to this site through a private pump station and a force main and the Sanitation Authority has agreed to allow this arrangement until they can provide the service at some later date. He said that water will be provided by a well and private system. Mr. Miller said that the Fire Marshal has expressed a concern for the availability of water for fire protection and has suggested the bonding of a future hydrant for the location. Mr. Miller said that bonding this requirement would be holding the applicant hostage for what could be a very long time depending on when public water is extended beyond the Route 37 barrier. He said that the staff believed a condition on the permit requiring the applicant to provide a hydrant if and when public water is available would be adequate. Mr. Miller added that an approved site plan would be required prior to any construction on this site. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc, the consulting engineers for this project, said that this property lies within an Urban Development Area as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Maddox said that the old facility on this site will be removed and a new, modern facility will be built. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Ralph Poe, owner of Candy Hill Campground, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Poe said that the Candy Hill Campground is probably the largest tourist attraction in the County and approximately 10,000 vehicles per year enter Ward Avenue to get to his facility. Mr. Poe said that Ward Avenue accommodates this traffic and he didn't feel that the proposal would 17 create a traffic hazard. He also felt that water would not be a problem. Mr. Poe said that all of these people need to buy gasoline and a service facility at the end of Ward Avenue would be ideal for them. He said that he has reviewed the site plan and discussed with the applicant a change on the entry and exit to handle large RVs that are towing cars or tow vehicles that are handling large trailers. Mr. Poe said the applicant has agreed to make changes that would benefit the clientele that he would be providing. Mr. Taz Shultz, counsel for The Farmers Livestock Exchange, the adjoining property owner, said that they felt this facility would greatly improve the area. Mr. Shultz said that this was a long standing business property. Mr. Bob Johnson, area resident, inquired if this would be a 24-hour facility, if there would be outdoor speakers, and if diesel fuel would be sold for trucks. Mr. Johnson said that he also had concerns about water and sewer. Mr. Forrest Brown, area resident and business owner, asked what the cost would be for the applicant to connect to the sewer system now. Mr. Maddox came forward to answer some of the questions raised by the area residents: the facility would not be readily available for trucks; a 24-hour operation was not initially planned and would only be implemented if the market demanded; the traditional intercom used by customers to order at a drive-through would be utilized and no other external loudspeakers were planned; and regarding the cost of extending sewer, the cost would be substantial. Mr. Maddox said that in the event a regional sewer solution is brought forward, the applicant has agreed to turn the private facilities over. Mr. DiBenedetto said that one of the issues that came before the Commission some time ago was the appearance of a similar fast food restaurant that was going to be located on one of the last nice -looking corridors going into the City of Winchester. Mr. DiBenedetto inquired what kind of design the applicant had planned for this structure. Mr. Maddox said that they did not have a particular motif in mind at the present time, but planned a standard Hardees Restaurant with landscaping, buffers, and screening. Commissioners noted that particular attention needed to be paid to the facade of the building to make it aesthetically pleasing and suggested that the applicant use a colonial style design or a steeper roof line. Some of the Commissioners were concerned about issuing a conditional use permit in an Urban Development Area, especially for a B2 use, instead of rezoning the property. They also raised the point of how design standards, such as landscaping, buffering, and screening, would be required and implemented after a conditional use permit was approved. The staff noted 18 that site plan standards for a business use would need to be met. Mr. Morris moved that consideration be tabled until the applicant submitted a specific site plan. This motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas, but was defeated by the following vote: YES (TO TABLR): Ours, Morris, Thomas NO: Shickle, Romine, Wilson, DeHaven Marker, Copenhaver, Light Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #{011-95 of Hardees/Mobil Convenience Center for a restaurant, gas station, and convenience center with the stipulation that a site plan be presented to the Commission for review and approval and that the following conditions apply: 1. A site plan must be submitted and approved prior to any construction on this site. 2. Any change of use or expansion of approved facilities will require a new conditional use permit. 3. When public water is available to this site, the applicant must insure than an adequate water supply for fire protection is provided. This may include the installation of a hydrant at the expense of the applicant. 4. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed and complied with at all times. The majority vote was as follows: ATO APPROVE): Ours, Shickle, Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Light NO: Morris, Thomas 19 There being no further business to discuss, Chairman DeHaven adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed November 2, 1995) REZONINGS: James T. Wilson OPEZ) Opequon 2.99 Acres B1 to B2 Location: East side of A for Rd. t. 647 Submitted: 09/14/95 PC Review: 10/04/95 Tabled Flying J Travel Plaza REZ Stonewall 3.65 Acres RA to B3 Location: SW quadrant - interchange of I-81 & Rt. 669 Submitted: 09/08/95 PC Review: 1 10/04/95 Ap2roved SOS Review: L101111-125 Approved Professional Mobile Home Brokers (John Tauber) (REZ Stonewall 2.1514 Acres B2 to B3 Location: Rt. 7; 300 ds. east of Regency Lakes Dr. Submitted: Submitted: 08/16/95 PC Review: 09/06/95 - Approved Review: 10/11/95 - Approved James Carroll REZ Shawnee 2.81 acres RP to B2 Location: Custer Ave./Pembridge Rd. Submitted: 10/07/94 PC Review: Tabled by PC: 11/02/94 Tabled at Applicant's request: 12/07/94, 03/01/95, 04/05/95, 04/19/95, and 11/01/95 BOS Review: not yet scheduled Wayne Ridgeway REZ Gainesboro 2.047 acres RA to B3 Location: Rt. 522 Submitted: 04/05/95 PC Review: Tabled at Applicant's request: 05/03/95, 08/02/95 10/04/95 - Recommended Denial BOS Review: 11/08/95 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: J.I.C. Ltd. Industrial Lots MDP Shawnee M1 Lot for metals works & fabrication 8.411 tl, acreage) Location: Arbor Ct. Rt. 1000 Extension; off Victory Ln. 728 Submitted: 08/11/95 PC Review: 09/06/95 - Approved BOS Review: 10/11/95 - Approved Pending Admin. Approval., Awaitina completion of review agency requirements. Fieldstone H hts MDP Stonewall 169 SF Det. Trad. Lots RP Location: South of Valley Mill Rd. Rt. 659) Submitted: 04/25/95 PC Review: 05/18/94 Tabled 07/06/94 Approved BOS Review: 08/10/94 Approved Pending Admin. A Koval: Awaitinq completion of review agency requirements Battlefield Partnership (MDP) Back Creek 16.3 Acres of B2 Property Location: South of Winchester, between Rts. 11 S and I-81 Submitted: 02/21/92 PC Review: 03/18/92 Approved BOS Review: 04/08/92 Approved Pending Admin. A Koval:Awaitin completion of review agency requirements James R. Wilkins, III MDP Shawnee 76 Apartments & 86 T.H. (RP) Location: South side of Rt. 659 Submitted: 11/02/92 PC Review: 12/16/92 Tabled 02/17/93 Approved BOS Review: 03/10/93 Tabled /14/93 Approved PendingAdmin. Approval: LAwaitingcompletion of review agency re uirements SUBDIVISIONS: Valley Mill Estates SUB Stonewall 21 SF Trad. Lots RP Location: No. Side of Valley Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 10/23/95 PC Review: 11/15/95 BOS Review: Review not re uired--Has an a22roved NMP Wine -Fred Co. IDC (SUB) Back Creek 2 M1 Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres Location: Southeast side of Development Lane Submitted: 09/08/95 PC Review: 10/04/95 Approved BOS Review: Review not required --Has an approved NIDP Pending Admin. AREE2val Awaitin si ned plats. Fredericktowne Estates, Sect. 10_& 11 SUB Opequon 34 SF Detached Lots on 15.4738 Acres (RP) Location: East of Stephens City, north of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 8 & 9 Submitted: 09/07/95 PC Review: 10/04/95 - Approved under current design stds. BOS Review: Review not required --Has an approved MDP. On 10/11/95, applicant appealed PC decision. BOS granted. Pending Admin. Approval Awaiting signed plats. 4 Star Fort, Sect. I (SUB) Opequon 2 Lots from 0.803 Acres (B1) Stonewall 21 SF lots on 7.5713 total acres RP Location: Lauck Drive; east side of Rt. 832 Submitted: 08/28/95 PC Review: 10/18/95 - A roved DOS Review: Review not re wired --Has an a roved MDP Pendia Admin. A royal: Awaiting signed, lats. Maxwell T. Mandel, DVM SUB Opequon 2 Lots from 0.803 Acres (B1) Location: Southeast corner of Rt. 277 & Highlander Rd. Submitted: 07/28/95 PC Review: 09/06/95 -Approved BOS Review: 09/13/95 - Approved Pendin Admin. Approval: Awaiting signed plats. J.I.C., Ltd. Industrial Lots Residue of Lot 9-A SUB Shawnee 2 Lots - 8.411 total Acres (M1) Location: Arbor Ct. Rt. 1000), off of Victory Lane Rt. 728) Submitted: 08/11/95 PC Review: 09/06/95 -Approved BOS Review: Review Not Required - Has an Approved NOP Pending Admin. Approval Awaiting signed plats. =RT&T PartnershipSUB Back Creek 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres B2 Location: Valley Pike Rt. 11 So. Submitted: 05/17/95 PC Review: 06/07/95 Approved BOS Review: Review not required—has an approved NMP Pending Admin. A roval: Awaiting submission of signed 2lat & deed of dedication Briarwood Estates SUB Stonewall =0 SF Det. Trad. Lots RP Location: Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 01/03/94 PC Review: Review date pending atapplicant's request. BOS Review: Review not required—has an a2proved NMP Abrams Point, Phase I SUB Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots RP Location: South side of Rt. 659 Submitted: 05/02/90 PC Review: 06/06/90 Approved BOS Review: 06/13/90 Approved Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat Harry Stimpson SUB O e uon Two B2 Lots Location: Town Run Lane Submitted: 09/23/94 PC Review: 10/19/94 Approved B Review: 10/26/94 Approved Pending Admin. Ap royal: Awaiting signed 21at. Preston Place SUB Shawnee 72 Garden Apartments Location: North side of Ai ort Rd. Rt. 645 Submitted: 10/31/94 PC Review: 11/16/94 Approved B Review: Not required—Has an approved MDP PendingAdmin. A roval: Awaitingsi ned lats. SITE PLANS: Horizon Development Co. SP Shawnee Parking Layout on 0.20 acres B2 Location: 1090 Millwood Pike Submitted: 10/27/95 Approved: Pendin Regency Lakes, Sect. E SP Stonewall 95 units on 28.0 acres(MM) Location: North of Regency Lakes Drive Submitted: 10/27/95 Approved: Pending Timber Ridge Adminis- tration Bldg SP Gainesboro 12,800 sf Admin. Bldg. on 2.8 acres RA Location: 1463 New Hope Road, Cross Junction Submitted: 10/06/95 11 Approved: Pending Power Tech SP Stonewall 1500 sf addition on 0.13 ac. M1 Location: 1458 Martinsburg Pike Submitted: 10/02/95 11 Approved: LPending Butler Construction (Butler Mfg. Co.) (SP Stonewall Bldg Addition on 0.68 acres (M1) Location: 276 Woodbine Road, Clearbrook Submitted: 09/21/95 Approved: 10/06/95 Rite Aid Pharmacy (SP) Opequon Rite Aid Pharmacy on 1.50 acres BZ Location: SE corner of intersection of Fairfax Pk (Rt. 277) & Double Church Rd. Rt. 64 1) Submitted: 09/08/95 Approved: Pending Training His Tots Christian PreSchool (SP) Back Creek Shelter Renovation on 2.25 Acres RA Location: 4118 Valley Pike, Church of Christ at Mt. View Submitted: 09/01/95 11 Approved: 10/13/95 James Wood High School Addition SP Back Creek Fuel Storage/Retail Store on 0.60 acres B2 & M1 Gainesboro School Addition on 0.43 Acres RA Location: A le Pie Ridge Road Rt. 739 Submitted: 08/31/95 Approved: Pending Southern States Cooperative, Inc. SP Back Creek Fuel Storage/Retail Store on 0.60 acres B2 & M1 Location: 5784 Valley Pike Submitted: 08/30/95 11 Approved: Pending edbud Run Elementary chool SP Stonewall Public School on 26.65 acres RA ocation: [A- Rt. 7, a rox. 1 mi. east of 1-81 ubmitted: 08/01/95 roved• A roved 10/09/95 Wheatlands Wastewater Facility SP Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres R5) . Location: So. West of Double Toll ate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: Bein held atapplicant's request. Flex Tech (SP) Stonewall M1 Use on 11 Ac. (M1 Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Being held ata licant's request. HCMF Development Corp. (Van Gilder's Nursing Home) (SP Stonewall Addition on 1.6 Acres (RP) Location: 1011 Pennsylvania Avenue Submitted: 05/30/95 Approved: Pending consolidation plat by owner. Sherando Hi h School SP O e uon Addition RA Location: Rt. 277 Submitted: 09/20/95 Approved: Pendin Macedonia United (SP) Methodist Church Addition Shawnee Church on 5+ Acres (RA) Location: 1941 Macedonia Church Rd., White Post Submitted: 07/31/95 Approved: Pending CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Hardee's-Mobile Convenience Cntr. CUP Back Creek Restaurant, Gas, & Convenience Center RA Location: Rt. 50W - Northwestern Pk at intersection of Ward Ave Rt. 1317) at the Livestock Exchange Submitted: 09/08/95 PC Review: 10/04/95 - Approved BOS Review: 10/25/95 - Approved 9 Jose h W. Edmiston CUP Back Creek Kennel RA Location: 1293 Hollow Road, Westview Estates, Lot 5 Submitted: 09/07/95 PC Review: 10/04/95 - Approved BOS Review: 10/25/95 - Tabled until 11/08/95 Vito & Carrie Angelone CUP Back Creek 30 -Run Dog Kennel w/ Storage Area RA Location: 376 Gough Road t. 618) Submitted: 08/15/95 11/21/95 PC Review: 09/06/95 - Approved w/ Conditions BOS Review: 10/11/95 - Approved w/ Conditions Charles W. Goff (CUP) Gainesboro Gun & Small Engine Repair RA Location: 10998 North Frederick Pk., Cross Junction Submitted: 08/08/95 11/21/95 PC Review: 09/06/95 - A2pLoved w/ Conditions BOS Review: 10/11/95 - Approved w/ Conditions VARIANCES: Frank G. Iddings Shawnee 4.7' front yard variance foi- existin dwellingRP Location: 113 Clearwater Court Submitted: 11/01/95 BZA Review: 11/21/95 Sherando High School O e uon 7' side =for addition RA Location: 185 S. Warrior Drive Submitted: 10/27/95 BZA Review: 11/21/95 James Sirbaugh (VAR) Back Creek 2' right side yard variance for existing house RA Location: 280 Perry Road Submitted: 10/23/95 BZA Review: 11/21/95 William M. Battaile (VAR) Gainesboro 35' right & rear variance for a dwelling RA Location: Lake St, Clair Drive in Lake St. Clair Submitted: 10/11/95 BZA Review: 11/21/95 Richard A. Comer VAR O e uon 4' rear yard for 2 -car garage Location: 101 Tern Avenue, Greenbriar Village, Lot 307 Submitted: 09/22/95 IL BZA Review: 10/17/95 - Approved Patriot Homes VAR Shawnee 6' rear and for a deck Location: 315 Pembridge Drive, Pembridge H hts, Lot 94 Submitted: 09/08/95 11 BZA Review: 10/17/95 - Approved a 1' variance. 12 Gary J. Kerns (VAR) Back Creek 23' front yd & 4' right side yd for attached garage Location: 168 Woodchuck Lane t. 654) Submitted: 09/08/95 BZA Review: 11/21/95 -Tabled; Next Review Date: 11/21/95 13 IE. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #92 (Oct. 15-31) I. Transportation Evan Wyatt met with Steve Melnikoff, VDOT Project Manager, to discuss proposed safety improvements and design requirements for the Affordable Dentures facility located along Front Royal Pike. These improvements are the result of the Front Royal Pike expansion project. 2. Battlefield Preservation Bob Watkins met with Bob Carter of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Dennis Frye of the Associations for the Protection of Civil War Sites to discuss battlefield strategies. 3. GIS/Mapping Evan Wyatt updated Auto Cad mapping for the Roundhill Community Center study. 4. Plan Reviews Approvals, and Site Inspections Evan Wyatt reviewed the followinLy site laps: a) Amoco Convenience Center located along North Frederick Pike for the establishment of a new retail facility with fuel service for tractor trailers and automobiles. b) Timber Ridge School located along New Hope Road for the addition of a new administrative office building. c) Power Tech located along Route 37 for a new warehouse addition. Evan Wyatt conducted the followin2 site inspections: a) New school building for the Church of Christ at Mountain View located along Valley Pike. b) Site work completion at the Price Club located along Front Royal Pike. C) Site work completion at the Preston Place Apartment complex located along Airport Road. Page 2 BOS Activity Report #91 October 15-31 d) Completion of road system within Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 8 & 9. 5. Meetings Bob Watkins and Eric Lawrence met with George Johnston to discuss a subdivision. Bob Watkins attended a meeting on the area Needs Assessment study. Kris Tierney had the followine meetings with: a) Steve Gyurisin and John Tauber to discuss buffer requirements at the recently rezoned property on Route 7 where Mr. Tauber intends to sell mobile home units. b) Scott Leonard and Ed Dove to discuss a possible rezoning near the intersection of Routes 277 and 636 for a retirement community. c) George Glaize and his clients to discuss a development proposal near the interchange of Route 37 and 50. d) Lee Ebert to discuss a number of proposed rural subdivisions. e) Scott Marsh to discuss various aspects of two large rural subdivisions he is working on. f) Bruce Legge of Marsh & Legge to discuss requirements for two proposed rural subdivisions. Evan Wyatt had the following meetings, with: a) Steve Gyurisin to discuss buffer and screening requirements associated with the Tauber Model and Mobile Home Sales located along Berryville Pike. b) Kris Tierney, Kevin Adams, and John Lewis to discuss the master plan and site plan requirements associated with a new office and warehouse flex space project located along Airport Road within the Airport Business Center. Page 3 BOS Activity Report #91 October 15-31 C) Tom Sullivan to discuss requirements for the Sherando High School addition. The Frederick County School Board will be applying before the Board of Zoning Appeals in November based on this meeting. d) Preconstruction meetings at James Wood High School and Sherando High School for the proposed additions. e) Technical Review Committee to discuss the Tauber Model Home and Mobile Homes Sales site plan located along Berryville Pike, the revised Dominion Knolls townhouse development site plan located at the intersection of Fort Collier Road and Baker Lane, and Regency Lakes Estates Mobile Home Park - "Section E" located along Regency Lakes Drive. f) Keith Burr to finalize addendums to the Winchester Electric site plan. This facility is located in the Fort Collier Industrial Park. g) Several citizens interested in the establishment of properties for the Interstate Area (IA) Overlay District. Eric Lawrence had the following meetings with: a) Julie Tran to discuss improvements to the Armel Grocery. Ms. Tran would like to increase the store's storage capacities. b) Met with Theodora Rezba to discuss a potential addition to her residence on Chapel Road. C) Met with Carl Kerns to discuss locating a storage building at a Sunoco service station located on Martinsburg Pike, adjacent to Amoco Lane. 6. Zoning Violations Eric Lawrence responded to six zoning violation complaints. Four of the complaints were concerning inoperable vehicles; the site visit confirmed that zoning violations do indeed exist. The other two complaints were concerning the placement of storage structures within the yard Page 4 BOS Activity Report #91 October 15-31 setbacks; both structures will be relocated to comply with setback requirements. 7. Professional Development Eric Lawrence conducted a planning seminar for staff concerning potential improvements for landscape designs. Staff is interested in working with site designers to design more effective landscapes for the benefit of screening, buffering, and aesthetics. 8. Other Interviews were held for applicants to fill the Planner I position. PC REVIEW: 11/15/95 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #013-95 VALLEY MILL ESTATES LOCATION: This property is located on the north side of Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and east of Greenwood Road (Route 656). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-176 SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of 17.20 acres for a 21 lot subdivision consisting of single family housing. PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance); Land Use: vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RP (Residential Performance); Land Use: residential and RA (Rural Area); Land Use: vacant. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION• See attached comments dated October 11, 1995. SANITATION AUTHORITY: Approved. FIRE MARSHAL: 1) When home construction begins, temporary street signs and lot addresses must be erected. 2) Access for emergency vehicles is required at all times. 3) Burning of land and cleaning debris requires permits from the Fire Marshal's Office. 4) Burning of construction debris is prohibited on job sites. Page 2 Valley Mill Estates Subdivision #013-95 INSPECTIONS: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code/ 1993, and Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code. Please submit site plans for lots 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 at the time of permit application. Parks and Recreation: No comment. Public Works: See attached letter dated July 3, 1995. PLANNING AND ZONING: There is an approved master development plan for the proposed subdivision. The subdivision layout appears to comform to the MDP. Staff concurs with the County Engineer's comments regarding the need for detailed site plans for lots 3,4, 13,14,16,17,20 and 21. We also share concerns about the practicality of lot 21 as a building site given the slopes invloved and the drainage easement which bisects the lot. Some redesign should be considered. RECOMMENDATION FOR NOVEMBER 15,1995: Approval, contigent upon erosion and sedimentation control and other information being supplied to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, requested notes being placed on subdivision plats, and satisfaction of all other review agency comments. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER PO. BOX 278 EDINBURG. 22824-0278 October 11, 1995 Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Ron: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P. E. RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 9945600 FAX (540) 984.5607 Ref: Valley Mill Estates Route 1270 Frederick County This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised, plans dated September 28, 1995 to the above referenced project. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved. Please advise the developer accordingly. I offer the following comments: A preconstruction conference be held by the engineer and/or developer with the attendance of the contractor, various County agencies and VDOT shall be conducted prior to initiation of work. • Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department prior to inclusion into the Secondary Road System. • Attached is a copy of the minimum requirements and information needed prior to acceptance of subdivision streets into the Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. • All drainage is to be carried within the right-of-way in ditch lines or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of time. VDOT will also require 48 hours notice for inspections. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky Ref: Valley Mill Estates October 11, 1995 Page Z • The appropriate land use permits shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right-of-way. • If mailboxes are to be placed along the roadway fronting lots, a minimum of four (4') feet shall be between the edge of pavement and the front of mailbox. • Private entrances will be installed in accordance with VDOT's Standard PE -1 Specifications. This is the developer's responsibility. • Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with attachments. • I suggest any utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right-of- way be backfilled completely with C.R. Type 21-A Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement settlement. This plan is approved with the understanding we have yet to complete our review of your recently submitted trip generation data. If the information indicates improvements at the intersection of Route 659/1270 are necessary, then the developer will be responsible for implementing those measures prior to our acceptance of Mill Race Drive Extended or Racey Ridge Drive into our Secondary Maintenance System. Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer C �,�L 4, t, ,-/ /�. 6 C/6 &,-, - - By: Robert B. Childress Permits/Subd. Spec. Supervisor RBC/rf Attachments xc: Mr. T. L. Jackson Mr. S. A. Melnikoff (w/ 3 sets of plans) Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. H. E. Strawsnyder Mr. Jahn Popovich, Chairman - WFUCC Revised 08/01/94 Air 1111T INFORMATION NEEDED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION STREETS INTO STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM Subdivision streets may be considered eligible for acceptance into the State Secondary System when: • Built according to plans approved by the Department of Transportation, properly maintained since completion and • Rendering a public service (serving three (3) occupied dwellings or three (3) businesses per street]. THE FOLLOWING WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED TO THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUESTING THE ADDITION: 1. Three (3) copies of as -built construction plans showing: • Roadway Geometrics • Drainage & Drainage Easements Z. Three (3) copies of the final plat with date & place of recordation, deed book number and page number. 3. Signed permits covering all utilities, publicly or privately owned, to occupy or cross the right-of-way and quitclaiming any prior rights. 4. Bond to guarantee workmanship and performance of material for one year from date of acceptance. (See reverse side for schedule.) 5. Maintenance Fee - check payable to the "Virginia Department of Transportation". This fee is based on the length of the streets involved from the date of acceptance to the end of the fiscal year (June 301). No maintenance fee is required if the addition is effective July 1". (See reverse side for schedule.) ADDITIONS WILL BE MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY ON THE FIRST OF THE MONTH. ALL DATA IS TO BE V THE EDINBURG RESIDENCY OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY THE IST OF THE PRECEDI\G MONTH. (30 DAYS) FEE.& SURETY SCHEDULE for SUBDIVISION STREET ADDITIONS f- 1 -Mr. MICA. -MQ j SURETY MAINMNvCE FEE 2 -LANE STREET• Minimum (up to 0.25 mile) $ 3,750 $375/year From 0.25 to 0.50 mile $ 7,500 $750/year Over 0.50 mile $ 1,500/tenth of mile $150/tenth of mile & & fraction thereof fraction thereof 4 -LANE STREET: Minimum (up to 0.25 mile) $ 7,500 $750/year --rom 0.25 to 0.50 mile $15,000 $1,500,1year Over 0.50 mile $ 3,000/tenth of mile $300/tenth of mile & & fraction thereof fraction thereof XAMPLES A two lane street, 0.35 mile long, is processed for addition effective September 1". Therefore, surety is required for four -tenths mile and maintenance fee is required for ten months. Surety required: 57,500 Maintenance fee required: 5750 x 10/12 = $625 A four lane street, 0.78 mile long, is processed for addition effective February P. Therefore, surety is required for eight -tenths mile and maintenance fee is required for five months. Surety required: 8 x 53,000 = $24,000 Maintenance fee required: 8 x $300 x 5/12 = S1,000 '—MINIMUM 6' r T6' TO 12' ACUTE ANGLE INTERSECTION CHANNELIZED INTERSECTION =LNMARKEC CROSSWALK ss SIDE -BALK '4 MINIMUM .i �IMINIMUM a` URBAN INTERSECTION Figure 2-2. Typical locations for sfop sigm and yield sigrm 2A-10 2 MINIMUM x i N �= MAXIMUM 50 i TO iZ' .� 6' TO 12' DIVISIONAL ISLAND WIDE THROAT INTERSECTION Figure 2-2. Typical locations for sfop sigm and yield sigrm 2A-10 ROADSIDE SIGN RURAL DISTRICT ROAOSIDE SIGN BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE DISTRICT SPEED umir 50 J: r Z o� 41 ROADSIDE ASSEMBLY RURAL, DISTRICT I 03 15 'U AOSiCE SIGN AURAL LIST;11CI WARNING SIGN WITH ADVISORY SPEED PLATE RURAL DISTRICT I< > 25 sk yT �I. 1 oi= SiGN ON ISLAND CC -1 IN THE _;.yE OF TRAFFIC ." OVERHEAD MOUNTING 0 I Figure 2-7. Height and Iteral location of sigm_typrcnl im7allations. 2A-9 COUNTY of FREDERICK Public Works Departmen Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E Directo 703/665-564: Fax: 703/678-068, July 3, 1995 Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky, Jr., P.E. Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Subdivision Plan for Valley Mill Estates Dear Ron: We have completed our review of the subdivision plans proposed for Valley Mill Estates and offer the following comments: 1. Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative: Paragraph 2.1 F indicates that the following devices are shown on the drawings: a. Sediment basin b. Construction entrance c. Inlet and outlet protection d. Silt fence e. Rock fill check dam Only items "b" and "c" are shown on sheet 3 of 7. The remaining erosion and sediment control measures need to be added at the appropriate locations. The sediment basin needs to be incorporated in the design of the stormwater detention basin. 2. Stormwater Management a. A predevelopment "C" value of 0.35 should be adopted for the Martinsburg shale. b. The offsite drainage originating from the Pioneer Reights subdivision should be evaluated using a "C" value of 0.45 to insure adequate piping within the proposed Valley Mill Estates development. c. Re-evaluate the weighted post development "C" value assuming a pre -development "C" value of 0.35 in the undeveloped shale. d. Resubmit revised design calculations. 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Mislowsky Letter July 3, 1995 Page 2 3. Sheet 2 of 7: Correct the inlet invert elevation shown for the stormwater detention basin. 4. Sheet 3 of 7: Based on the proposed grading scheme and drainage layout, we will require detailed site plans for the following lots: 3,4,13,14,16,17,20, and 21. A note should be added to the drawings stipulating this requirement. Also, the developer should be notified that it will be their responsibility to notify prospective lot owners of this requirement. 5. Sheet 3 of 7: Lot 21 will be a difficult lot to develop because of the proposed fill requirements and drainage structures which cross the lot. At a minimum, this office will require that a detailed geotechnical study and a site plan be submitted for our review and approval prior to granting a permit for this lot. Consideration should be given to incorporating this lot with lot 20 or designate the lot as open space. 6. Sheet 3 of 7: The proposed stormwater management plan diverts drainage across lot 21 onto lot 80 located in Mill Race Estates. At a minimum, the outlet end of the proposed culvert will require stabilization with something more substantial that just rip -rap. In addition, easements will be required within the Mill Race subdivision to allow conveyance of the stormwater to the stormwater detention basin. Piping the storm flows directly to the detention basin may prove to be a more prudent design. 7. Sheet 3 of 7: Grouted rip -rap should be utilized for drainage channels located on steep slopes. 8. Sheet 4 of 7: A note has been included indicating that all CMP will be asphalt coated. Clarify that this note also applies to driveway entrances. 9. Sheet 5 of 7: Compaction tests will be required for the proposed detention basin embankment. 10. Sheet 6 of 7: Specify grouted rip -rap within the emergency spillway. Mislowsky Letter July 3, 1995 Page 3 11. Sheet 7 of 7: The detail specified for the inlet protection will be enforced by our inspection personnel. The earthwork contractor will be required to obtain a land disturbance permit prior to initiating the site development. The permit fee will be waived if the site plan has been approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to that time. This permit will allow this office to inspect the erosion and sediment control measures prior to initiating any grading. Please contact the curder signed if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely Harvey Strawsnyder,Jr. P.E. Directo of Public Works HES/srb cc: file APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Date: ' 1 > Application # �, Fee Paid V'7 Applicant/Agent:[,R_T VIJ. Address:2c:)C> Phone: - &&-7 - Z( Owners name: Address: - 2-1 / [r Phone: ��j`t -- Z - C) Please list names of all stockholders: Contact Person: Phone.- '540- &G-7- Z1'3q Name of Subdivision: Number of Lots Zi owners, principals and /or majority At. 63"fucis'o'j M( c.L Total Acreage Fes' OCT '' Z') i Of pt"J" iP�G W!KWINC!1 Property Location: or %-yy1 �- cA2Ico — _ = lT!/ (Give State Rt.#, name, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District __50—��A-4� Property Identification Number (PIN)) - LA)) 8 Property zoning and present use: Z P -- ;i Adjoining property zoning and use: 41 PA- - i )K -=-, Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes V No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes No What was the MDP title? M N) Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No --VL If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) Z (✓Ar2' Number and types of housing units in this development: Number Types pC-T 1 q95 RV���v�� 9EVr, of 6Kp PEVEIOPMEW 9 FINAL PLAT Stonewall Magisterial District VaHey ME I&Iatm ,p X221 is, �=''r' , it 11I Vicinity Map i ;' may' Scaie: 1'-2000' APPROVED BY Frederick Coun t v. Virain i, Frederick County Sanitation Authority Date Planning Commission Date Subdivision Administrator Date Ila. Dept. of Transportation Date OWNER'S CONSENT The above and foregoing subdivision of land, as appears in the accompanying plats, is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors, and trustees, if any. Date NOTARY PUBLIC a Notary Public in and for the State of Virginia, at large, do certify that whose names are signed to the foregoing Owners Consent have acknowledged the same before me in my state. Given under my hand this________ day of _—_---- 1995. My commission expires SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE l hereby certify that the land contained in this subdivision is a portion of the land conveyed to Gerald L. Racey and Frances C. Racey by deed dated 5 December 1977 and a portion of the land conveyed to The Cameron Group by deed dated 20 September 1995, said deeds recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 489 at Page 192 and Deed Book 845 at Page 1611, respectively. The land is designated as "Parcel 1-16.0204 Acres" on a Boundary Line Adjustment Plat TH pF dated 19 October 1995, said plat recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's G Office in Deed Book at Page . l P. DUANE ����� -� v7Q� BROWN P. Duane Brown, L.S. � � DATE: OCTOBER 20, 1995 COVER SHEET PILE#: "656SPLAT.DWG" NO, 1285 gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. < ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS -- SURVEYORS SHEET Q 150—C Olde Greenwich Drive 1 �� SURv�� Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 200 North Cameron Street �� (540) 898-2115 Winchester, Vlrgi 22601 (340) 667-2139 11 � .. sS,TH OF y P, DUANE BROWN NO. 1285 DATE. OCTOBER 20, 1995 1CURVE TABLE FILED "6568PLAT.OWG" gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. ENGINEERS — LANO PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET 150—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139 11 Curve Able CURVE I RADIUS I LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA 1 2 475.00' 7.77' 3.88 7.77' N68'15'45"W 00'5614 3 260.00 196.38 103.14 191.74 N$9Z5 53 W 43'16 30 4 250.00' 145.52' 74.89' 143.48' S48'4012 E 332105" 5 69$.78' 94.09' 47. f 2' 94.02' S28 08'12"E 0742'54 6 698.78' 625.15' 335.24 604.51' S0120'59 W 51'15'29 7 285.00' 285.00' 19.56 91.66' 9.7T____, 9_5_, N69 45 3$ W *56'00o 8 285.00' 104.03' 46.23 52.60' 91.27' 103.46' N80'56 27 W 57923'18"W 18'2539" 20451 9 35.00 50.39' 30 69 46.15 N69 49 2f W � .. sS,TH OF y P, DUANE BROWN NO. 1285 DATE. OCTOBER 20, 1995 1CURVE TABLE FILED "6568PLAT.OWG" gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. ENGINEERS — LANO PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET 150—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139 11 Area Summery Area in Lots 14.3725 Acres Area in R/W 1.6479 Acres TOTAL AREA SUBDIVIDED 16.0204 Acres Number of Lots 21 Average Lot Size 29,813 Sq. rt. EXISANO ZONING. • RP EXISTING USE.- VACANT All lots are single family detached — traditional MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT = 35' All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement SIDE 10' along all rights—of—way and a 10' Utility & Drainage REAR = 25' Easement along all property lines. D,yTH 0P G P. DUANE O BROWN r' NO. 1285 < q. MM IEdoftaw DATE: OCTOBER 20, 1995 GENERAL NOTES I FILE#: "6568PLAT.DWG" gilbert w, Clifford & associates, inc. ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET 150—C Old* Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF Frederieksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139 11 See sheet 2 of 11 for Currie Table. MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT - 35' SIDE = 10' REAR - 25' 4 3 .\(See sheet 5 of 11) .::.. ;\ A �. -;.:.. <e,, `•: Mill Rac 188 / Pioneer Heights Section Two 189 Zoned: RP Use: Residential Sss, DB 802 Pg. 33 \ ls30(91 `S8'14- 190 2 / / 26,228 SF �c / 1 /ry 22,782 SF lA I 2 L 1 6 e Drive N 50 R/W 26 7 N6j4),� 3 191 � � 1 of Mill �s 00 2? Race 20 , Drive j 50R/W 21 �a (See sheet 11 of 11) W 0 0 30 60 120 TH pF All lots are single family detached — traditional. All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way Lj and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines. P. DU NE AVLl of �i �� M LCde0fttm " r"9-e DATE: October 20, 1995 SCALE : 1" — 60'FILE/: "6568PLAT.DWG" NO, 1285 gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. < ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET qN0 SURVS 150—C aide Greenwich Oriva 20p North Cameron Street OF Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (54a) 898-2115 11 {540} 667-2139 184 Pioneer Hei�ghtsh See sheet 2 of 11 for Curve Table. Section Two MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 185 Zoned: RP William H.. Jr. Use: Residential SIDE 10' & Beverly P. /� / DB 802 Pg. 33 REAR 25' SclleZoned: RA Use: Vacant 186 D8 650 P 859 \ F / I\187 I92o,. Sys I 29,814 SF 188 c� (y /o��' 25,611 SF I w E)OP QRAfY TURNAROUND AS EI pry /ry i I t to O I sss2 453,, :: 34,885 SFif �L% 10 ....\� 6 CO. ✓ 68755'52 "W. \ 9.16,8 (See sheet 6 of 11) / s ' R W 7 Mill RaCe Drive N 50 4 0 30 60 120 0JL18All lots are single family detached — traditional. 5 All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—woy and a 10' Utility and�Drraiinnaagjje Easejm�ennjt�jajljojng gall prop�ejrtyy lines. DLIANV d H0.7 A�7J111ll11 J 69ft1l,eo OATS: October 20, 1995 SCALE 1" = 60' FILE; "6568PLAT.DWG" gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. 13U ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET 150-0 Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139 1 11 See sheet 2 of 11 for Curve Table. MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS �dF (See sheet 5 of 11) FRONT - 35' SIDE - 10' REAR 25' : ............3 0\ ` :... / TEMPORARY TURNAROUND p�9y 3 William H., Jr. j EASEMENT & Beverly P. Z Zoned- lleRA s� Use: Vacant! 08 650 P 859 rh 22,881 SF �/ 14 15 'ace 5Z pC- ® M;11 »w ' 5 �o a� _o w JR / 7 r 29,381 SFm 20 N �+rw CD 57642 3q"W , 1� CD ?? 4B' ' 1 N7S78•?>4731 88 ��, "W 29,67$0 SF Gerald L. & r - Frances C. � Racey c4 --�S81 Zoned: RA w Use: Vacant oD 261.40 P 9 0 0 z (See sheet 7 of 11) 0 3D BO 120 All lots are single family detached - traditional. e Tfl OFD All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights-of-way j and a 10' Utility andDrainageEasement along all property lines. PBRQ ANE �jV lAILU ey ME 1L oft gez DATE: October 20, 1995 SCALE : 1" - 60' FILE#: "6568PLAT.DWG" NO. 1285 gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET SURVE-(6L 150-C Olde Greenwich Drive 6 FrerlerllrJcaburg, Virginia 22401 200 North Cameron Street f1F (Se898-2115 Winchester, Virginia 22601 I 11 (540) 667-2139 See sheet 2 of 11 for Curve Table. MINIMUM SETBACK FRONT s 35' SIDE 10' REAR = 25' Gerald L & Frances C. Racey Zoned: RA Use: Vacant REQUIREMENTS TH OF � 1� P, DUANE © BROWN .� NO. 1285 ANO SURv��_4 (See sheet 6 of 11) w�N81'26,48~E 1 9 I I 23,677 SF to _ 9ros_o"W -- 266.01' o, N ++ V I 1 IP, 10 I � 26,663 SF � 18 1 N7 J2 W 60 ca 23.570 SIF / h0 W \ c ` "V -6, l 19 Qj 12 (See sheet 8 of 11) Vl 1 X17 16 0 30 - 6o 120 All lots are single family detached — traditional. All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines. VEHCby bm JEOU900 DATE: October 20, 1995 SCALE : 1" - 60' 1 FILE#: "6568PLAT.DWG" gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SWEET 150—C Olde Creenrich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (840) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139 11 (See sheet 7 of 11) 01 N \ N l .� I QL h O^/ 00 12 25,611 SF 16 z 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT N89 56'3b"W �� Gerald L. & % Frances C. 23,419 SF Racey ! �� 15 Zoned: RA Use. Vacant y / A? 10,o,`�p/ See sheet 2 of 11 for Curve Table MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT = 35' SIDE 10' REAR = 25' ,yTx of � l P. DUANE�' BROWN ►-' NO. 1285 SURVE-'°� 17 ` (See sheet 9 of 11) 0 30 60 1213 All lots are single family detached — traditional. All lots are subject to a 20' Slope k Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines. vzuey ME mwafto DATE: October 20, 1995SCALE 1" = #: "6568PLAT.DWG" 60' FILE gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS -- SURVEYORS SHEET 150—C Olds Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street p Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, North CameVirginron Street (540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139 I 11 See sheet 2 of 11 for Curve Table. (See sheet 8 of 11) MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FRONT = 35' SIDE = 10' \ 10' 13 REAR 25' VN // 14 \ / 41,311 SF ' Racey Ridge Drive / 5 L=14.92' Gerald L. &�m 1C'4 Frances C. N �22 �� g9/ 15 Racey to / 58,392 SF /��✓ zr Zoned: RA N� / ry V m Use: Vacant / �� / v 34.555'.77.777 /1 '20' DRAINAGE AND p :1 LatssslVATE SEDNER 405 00 " ':'.'. ESM �%• :.::. (r ..� :w:. �. L�-NOLIII1'39• :•... 00 O 0N h DRAINAGE EASEMENTq; 250.74' James R. & Mary B. Killough S 04'54'10" W Ila $ 20 Zoned: RA Use: Residential ° 30 so 120 94 DB 307 P 163 Keith R. Koontz Ex. DB 804 P 1550 Julie Street All lots are single family detached — traditional. 50' R/W �TH OF G All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way j and a 10Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines. P. DUANE ��� MM 11l yoftgeoo /� BROWN V>'O DATE: October 20, 1995 SCALE 1" = 60' FILE#: "6568PLAT.DWG" NO. i285 gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. < ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET -1ti0 150—C Olde Greenwich Drive ive 9 SURFredericksburg, Virginia rive 200 North Cameron Street OF Winchester, Virginia 22601 11 (540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139 (See sheet 11 of 11) 19YON 90 _17210' S89'11'29"E �: Charles E. & 253.32' ' Gabrielle S. Barr �D\ 705 P 55 (,5.►� 30�ahn 1E. & Jane P. 1 $ IcAllister j 30,854 SF 081694 P 819 S� t✓ 20' SAN. SEWER �\ ESW,7. / Mill Race Estates L ' Section Three O Zoned: RP lw7 ^ e: Residential i 17 l •a0>t / 32,437 SF / 92 R bent L. & Jean C. Padgett r00 .10, DB 819 P 502 O 8 SAN. SEWER 93 ` 93 John E. & Jane P. McAllister W. o DB 694 P 819 16CAJ 35.234 SF /.: 2Q. S8?o3'4o-E o ? /T7 S8634'08 f p +� T7??/rte 219.74' . - SAN. SEWER ESM'T 7,r� Ex Julle Street 5$p� R/N1 1>� :::_•: .. 2EWER EASEMENT 0...PR/VA TE S53'4o'11 _ S 14 59.69' _::'.ir..: •. r See sheet 2 of 11 for Curve Table. 45939'W 6.28' gq MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTSKeith R. Koontz FRONT = 28 DB 804 P 1550 95 SIDE 10't' .... 7 REAR = 25' 0 30 60 120 (See sheet 9 of 11) gs3i �All lots are single family detached — traditional. `iH OF L All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—wayand a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines. P. DUANE &M.1ll VdlHey IEdeo BROWN ►^" DATE: October 20, 1995 SCALE 1" = 60' FILE#: "6568PLAT.DWG" NO. 1285 gilbert w. Clifford & associates, in c. <ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET SURV��<e- 10 150—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139 11 (Sees eet 7 of 11) (See sheet 6 of 10 9 8 i Drive N 50, R /W RaCey Ridge ! -�'9 �I 19 20 27,766 SF I<0 28 919 SF 3 18 �� �- i/:...: 100to CN L 1292' O O `1' S06'S8' 2"E I -► f . '�ti` 9 2 v rn N07.92° /�--� 2 7 cv 20' SAN. SEWER ESag z� Sj6h0 E GCo � N' --1 I'119, Ay 11 21 26,959 SF _ — 62,181 5001 iW . / i / _ • 18' 14.43 L / 48148163'-- J S 0454'10 y 6 1188.20' 1 80 Setven A. & Catherine A. Dickey 79 DB 707 P 942 EX. Dale S. & Angela D. Cook MILL DB 759 P 613 90 RACE Mill Race Estates Charles E.�& 50 ' RW See sheet 2 of 11 for Curve Table. ORIV Section Three Gabrielle S. B rr MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Zoned: RP DB 705 P �5 FRONT = 35' SIDE 10' se: Residential REAR = 25' 0 30 eo 120 All lots are single family detached — traditional. re_,rH ofD All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—woy and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines. ANE WNe:.,�.,r, DATE: October 20, 1995 SCALE : 1°° = 60' FILE#: "6568PLAT.DWG" NO. 11285gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. O ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET � � 11 ti0 SURVE�150—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 wincheeter, Virg;"ia 2260' , " J( 540) 898-2115 (540)y 667-2134 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, AICP, Deputy Planning Director RE: Recommended Land Use Plan for Round Hill DATE: November 3, 1995 Enclosed is the Land Use Plan for the Round Hill Community which has been prepared, and is recommended, by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee. The need for a plan for this area has long been identified. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes ten Rural Community Centers and states that individual policies should be established for these areas. An Alternate Waste Water Treatment Study, completed in 1993, examined three of these centers, one of which was Round Hill. Part of the. study involved a survey of septic systems within the communities. The survey revealed a number of problem systems within Round Hill and a potential ground water contamination problem. The study also estimated the cost of providing an alternative waste water treatment system at roughly 2.8 million, well above the estimate for extending public sewer. The preparation of the plan began with a community meeting in the spring of this year. Survey forms were also mailed to all property owners within the defined limits of the community. The Committee met throughout the spring and summer to draft a plan in response to what they had heard at the meeting and through the survey. The draft plan was then presented at a second community meeting in September. The plan was again revised in response to public comment. The refined Plan is what is currently recommended to you. The plan calls for the eventual extension of public sewer to the community. The plan also calls for the development of new zoning regulations tailored to a rural community that would apply to the core area of Round Hill. The need for standards for the Route 50 corridor is also identified. Next to the desire for public sewer, the desire to keep the rural atmosphere of the community was the most often cited issue among land owners. 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Page 2 Round Hill Memo November 3, 1995 The Plan does not recommend inclusion of the community in the Urban Development Area as a whole. The Committee envisions a gradual expansion of the UDA and the Sewer and Water Service Area. The plan recommends that rezoning not take place prior to the provision of public utilities and the preparation of needed standards for the core area of the Community and for protection of the appearance of the Route 50 corridor. A system of collector roads is identified by the plan and approximate location of categories of land use are identified. In all, roughly 50% of the land within the community is proposed to remain under Rural Area Zoning into the indefinite future. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee feels that the plan strikes a balance between the desires of those interested in commercial development, and those interested in protecting and preserving the rural character ofRound Hill. The plan was prepared with an understanding of market forces and the overall impacts to the Community and the County. Please call if you have any questions regarding the Plan or its preparation. KCT/dc Attachment 1 i i �ti Irl Prepared and Recommended by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee October 14, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . I I Starting the Process ........ .......... I .................... I Background .— ................ 11 ............ — ... —;, 3 Key Components of the Plan ................... .............. 3 Minimum Lot Size for Core Area ............................... 6 Description of Phases . . . . I .................................. 7 Phase I ....................... 7 Phase 11 7 Phase 111 7 Infrastructure ..... 9 Sewer ................. 9 Water ................ 11 Roads ... 11 Summary .... I I ..... I ....... I I .......... . . . I I . ....... 12 TABLES Design Principles .......... ................. ....... ..... 5 Number of Lots by Acreage ............................... . . . . 6 Projected Sewer Demand ................................... � , lo MAPS Location Map ............................................ 2 Land Use Plan ................. 8 8 Introduction The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan identifies ten areas of the County as potential Rural Community Centers. The Plan acknowledges that these ten areas have distinct characteristics which set them apart from the surrounding rural areas. Some of the Community Centers identified have traditionally played a role as service centers for residents in and around the centers. The County has long recognized that standard rural area regulations may not be suited to these centers. Retail and service oriented commercial enterprises have existed in the centers for many years and some remain in existence today. The challenge facing the County is to develop land use policies and regulations which will allow these centers to continue to serve their traditional function without spoiling their rural character. Of all the identified Community Centers, the Round Hill Community is experiencing the most intense development pressure due to its close. proximity to the City of Winchester, the Route 50137 interchange, central sewer and water and the County's Urban Development Area boundary. With this in mind, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee has undertaken the task of developing a long range land use plan for the Round Hill Community first, complete with recommendations for the formulation of specific development regulations. Starting the Process The process of formulating a Plan began on May 8, 1995 when the Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC, a subcommittee of the County Planning Commission) and staff from the Department of Planning and Development, conducted a public meeting at the Round Hill Fire Hall. Estimates of the attendance at the meeting ranged from 120 to 140 individuals. Given the size of the community, this was considered to be a excellent turnout. The high attendance was attributed to a variety of factors. The meeting had been advertised in both the Winchester Star and the Northern Virginia Daily. Flyers, which announced the time, location, and intention of the meeting had been posted throughout the community and invitations had been sent to all 311 property owners within the established boundaries of the community. These invitations were in the form of a newsletter intended to educate the residents on the current status of their community with regard to county policies and give them an idea of the purpose of the planned meeting. These notices also contained a one page comment sheet which recipients were urged to either mail in or bring to the public meeting. A large parcel of land located within the defined community on the north side of Route 50, just west of the Route 37 intersection, had also been advertised for auction (C.L. Robinson tract). The entire Round Hill community contains approximately 1,100 acres. The parcel advertised for sale contained 243 acres. It is believed that curiosity and concern over the impact of this proposed land sale also contributed to the meeting's attendance. Round Hill Community 1 Draft Land Use Plan ROUND HILL COMMUNITY 'UDY AREA VICINITY MAP �Sta 44, 7SF0. ry GEORGE WT NATIONALge60 S y f "0 y y4 H� 0 A H } GOUNTY A �c Q W A f3 R E N COUNTY No phens City 7 % \ Brucetown tear FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA P cs C� a Gc GOUNTY A �c Q W A f3 R E N COUNTY No phens City 7 % \ Brucetown tear FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Following months of discussion among the CPPC aimed at formulating a plan for the community, a second meeting was held on September 25, 1995. The purpose of this meeting was to present the draft recommendations of the Committee to the community. This meeting was also well attended with an estimated 80 participants. Input received at this meeting was considered by the Committee and, in some cases, incorporated into the plan. Overall, the single greatest concern expressed was that the proposed plan didn't get sewer to the core area of the community fast enough. Back round The Round Hill Community has been the focus of discussion for more than one County committee in recent years. The primary issue addressed in these discussions has been whether or not to provide central sewer to the community, how this could be done, and the possible impacts this would have on the area. These discussions were fueled in part by the existence of a sewer line just to the east of Route 37 and rumors of failing septic systems. A sewer line had been extended to the eastern edge of Route 37 by the City of Winchester, prior to the construction of the Winchester Medical Center. This line had been oversized as part of an agreement between the City of Winchester and the County Sanitation Authority. The agreement required that the Sanitation Authority pay the cost difference of the oversized line and the City agreed to allow use of the line to serve an estimated 1,100 acres of medium density development within the Round Hill Community. The County had also conducted a study in 1993, which was funded by a grant from the State Water Control Board. The purpose of the study was to attempt to document the number of failing systems present within the community, and to examine the feasibility of providing sewage treatment to the community through some means other than a conventional collection and treatment system. The study concluded that there were in fact a number of failing systems within the community and that it would be possible to install a small diameter sewer collection system that would work in conjunction with individual residential septic tanks. This collection system would carry liquid waste to a treatment facility that would discharge into Abrams Creek. Several alternative treatment methods were identified. The estimated cost to construct such a system, however, was 2.8 million dollars, roughly 1 million over the Sanitation Authority's estimate of 1.85 million to extend a conventional sewer line to the community. Kev Components of the Plan The proposals made by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee for the Round Hill Community take into consideration input received from residents and land owners within the community, both as a result of the public meetings and through comment sheets which were distributed and returned. In all, 66 comment sheets were received. Though there was nearly an even split among those expressing an opinion on whether sewer should be extended to the community, (31 opposed and 30 in favor) few were in favor of large scale residential grov th. Many respondents Round Dill C~oannunih' 3 Draft Land Use Plan expressed a desire to keep the area rural and to protect the remaining open land. Others expressing opposition to a sewer extension sited cost as the reason for their reluctance. In response to the opinions expressed by residents of the community, the plan recommends leaving portions of the Community Center designated as rural land use. The majority of residential structures that comprise the Community Center are situated south of Route 50 along Route 803 and the connecting streets. Residences located outside of this core area tend to be more scattered and situated on larger (five acres or more) lots. In light of this, and given the numerous requests from landowners to retain the rural atmosphere of the community, the CPPC felt it was appropriate to restrict areas around the core to uses permitted under the current Rural Areas Zoning, rather than permit more dense development. This would help to maintain some of the more prominent rural views within the community. In all, of the 1,100 acres within the community center, roughly 400 to 500 is designated to remain rural land under the committee's proposal. In conjunction with the recommendation to maintain large amounts of open space adjacent to the core area of the Community Center, the Plan also calls for the development of a new zoning category tailored to accommodate rural community uses and building patterns. This recommendation is discussed in more detail later in the report. A second aspect of the proposed plan would be to designate the area within the Community Center, lying north of Route 50, as a potential planned unit development. This would allow for the submission of a detailed plan that addresses all relevant issues such as traffic, density, and appearance, but would not necessarily be bound by current land use regulations. An interested party could take the initiative to present an innovative plan, which conforms to the general guidelines established for the Community, while at the same time differing from established land use and site planning regulations. Such a plan would be subject to public hearings and Board of Supervisors' approval. The CPPC's proposal is broken down into distinct phases. The timing of development within the phases is very tentative and subject to factors such as the economy, the desires of individual landowners and, ultimately, approval by the Board of Supervisors. The time periods associated with the phases occur in five year intervals. This is merely for the purpose of establishing a basis for comparison and is not intended to be a regulatory time line for development. Naturally, the later the phase, the more speculative the timing. Timing of development within the community, or within any phase, will be regulated to some extend by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Development of any given area should be dependent on the availability of appropriate infrastructure. The committee does not recommend rezoning land within the community for commercial development prior to the provision of central sewer and water. It will ultimately be up to the Board of Supervisors to determine when it is appropriate to include areas of the community within the Sewer and Water Service Area, a necessary first step to extending utilities. Round Hill Community 4 Draft Land Use Plan There are a number of recommendations that are important elements of the proposed phasing. First, given the fairly uniform response from residents of the community, no area is proposed for high density residential development. As mentioned previously, it is the recommendation of the committee that a new zoning category be adopted which, among other things, allows residential development within the Community Center at a density in keeping with traditional development patterns for the community. Design Principles to be Established for Round Hill Curb -side parking Low speed limit Shade trees on both sides of street Modest front yard setback 15-30 feet Large amounts of open space 50% Modest size commerciaAretail uses Large predominance of single family dwellings Discreetsignage - maximum 10% of facade area Under ground utilities The new zoning classification should establish building location and use regulations which perpetuate existing development patterns. These regulations should be developed following a thorough examination of existing building patterns within Round Hill. Standards addressing such things as minimum and maximum front setbacks and building height for structures within the core area of the community, permitted commercial uses and their scale, the location of parking areas as well as their size, and screening should all be considered. The intended purpose being to permit the continuation of favorable building patterns, styles, and mix of uses found within the community rather than utilizing existing regulations which were not written with small rural communities in mind. The Committee recommends that standards also be developed that will minimize the visual disruption to the Route 50 corridor. This would involve standards for shared entrances, require a green space along Route 50 which might include a bike and or walking trail, address screening of structures and parking areas, and their location in relation to Route 50 itself, control the size, number and location of signs and finally, set minimum standards for landscaping. The objective is to prevent the creation of a typical commercial strip along this route. The regulations should discourage individual business entrances on Route 50 both for aesthetics reasons as well as transportation efficiency. Commercial establishments should front feeder roads which connect to Route 50 at signalized intersections. Pound Hill Community 5 Draft Land Use Plan Minimum Lot Size for Core Area In the case of the Round Hill core area, the committee is suggesting that a minimum lot size in the range of one half, to one acre be established. This recommendation is based on a study of existing lot size which revealed that nearly half of the roughly 400 lots within the Round Hill Community were under one half acre in size. Approximately 100 of the existing lots are between a half acre and one acre in size. It is suggested that a one-half, to one acre minimum would go into effect as part of implementation of Phase III of the proposed land use plan. This lot size change would only take place as part of an overall zoning change for the core area of the Community that addresses other issues such as building location and permitted uses, and would be dependent on the installation of a central sewer system. The smaller lot size is not proposed for the entire Community Center. Areas on the periphery of the community should be developed on larger lots. There should also be an effort made to preserve large contiguous parcels of open land around the perimeter of the Community Center as a means of maintaining the rural atmosphere. Based on the available sewer capacity (953;600gal./day) and an average household usage of 400 gallons per day, in the absence of other controlling factors, there would be the potential for roughly 2,400 residences to be served. This number, however, does not take into account commercial facilities or existing uses which presumably would also be tieing into central sewer when it becomes available. A more detailed discussion of sewer capacity and projected demand appears under Infrastructure later in the report. Round Hill Community 6 Draft Land Use Plan Description o Phases Phase I The first Phase in the proposed plan contains approximately 140 acres. This phase involves the establishment of a Business/Office area immediately adjacent to the Route 37 interchange. This portion of the phase contains roughly 80 acres. Approximately 30 acres adjacent to the railroad, and just west of Route 37, is designated for future light industrial\business use. The remainder of the phase is comprised of roughly 22 acres which is the proposed office site for the Virginia Department of Transportation and is currently zoned Industrial Transition (B-3). Implementation of this phase is anticipated to begin within the near term. For our purposes we have assumed a five year time frame. One of the anticipated results of this first phase would be to bring sewer and water to the west side of Route 37, thereby bringing these services that much closer to the existing residential community, portions of which have a demonstrated need. Business\office and light industrial development would require the extension of public sewer and water, and therefore, would necessitate an extension of the County's sewer and water service area. Such an extension would require action by the Board of Supervisors following a public hearing. Phase II The second phase of the proposed plan involves an area designated for a Planned Unit Development. The total area in this phase amounts to just over 165. There was a great deal of discussion at the Committee level regarding the best category of use for this portion of the community. It was finally determined that in order to allow for the maximum flexibility of possible future use, while at the same time maintaining control over important issues such as density and timing of future development, a planned unit development approach was best suited. This approach leaves open the possibility of a variety of land use types that can be jointly planned and proportioned to take advantage of the market conditions at the time of development. Phase III The third Phase encompasses the core area of the Community as well as some additional business\office uses along Route 50 for a total area of roughly 300 acres. The plan calls for infill residential development within the core area along with some appropriately scaled commercial uses. This portion of the phase involves roughly 250 acres. As mentioned above, it is not recommended that this residential development take place under the current Residential Performance regulations, but rather that new regulations be developed that enable the continuation of the rural community atmosphere. It is also recommended that the development be predominately single family residential with the possibility of some small scale businesses aimed at serving the immediate community. Round Hill Community 7 Draft Land Use Plan �iiiii MONK gin, rh4hi ROUND HILL COMMUNITY �.1 PROPOSED TotalArea 1100 Acres �. - jj� ♦ \, ` • / r IProposed _ /% //fir 0-5 yr 5-10 yr 10-15 yr \/�/./.....� .. �.'. .I 1• '%J/i/,; Vii/ /////// j //Time Frame WN AIR 51, NO is Owl ,/ . �,� �►�,���-.=��x�,1 �,%/, �:!►, ��lilff III// :::",r�r�; " %' %i ..... Proposed Collector Roads Community Center Boundary Proposed Community Center Addition .. o Open Space SCALE IN FUT 8�0� 6w i2W law 240 2W 0 U 0` ,/.� As with other phases, the type of development anticipated would require the availability of central sewer. Since the provision of public utilities will involve a substantial investment, this phase also proposes further expansion of business\retail westward out Route 50 as a means of funding the extension. The business area in this phase contains roughly 50 acres. Again, it is recommended that the commercial development be permitted only after the formulation of specific standards designed to address the visual impact of such development. Infrastructure Sewer An agreement between the City of Winchester and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority reserves 953,600 gallons of capacity within the sewer line which terminates just east of Route 37 for use by the County to serve the Round Hill Community. The staff has done a cursory estimate of usage for the land use plan being proposed. The estimate takes into account existing uses as well as a "worst case" demand if the areas designated for business, office, retail and light industrial uses were to develop to their maximum capacity under the appropriate zoning. Certain assumptions have been made in order to get an indication of the demand that might be anticipated. We have assumed the maximum square footage that would be attainable given requirements for open space, landscaping, buffer and screening, parking, roads and driveways. Based on the acreage designated for the general category of uses, we then determined a gross square footage of developed land. This square footage was then multiplied by an estimated gallons per day of water usage to arrive at an estimated sewer demand. The usage was based on the Virginia Department of Health's Waterworks Regulations and conversations with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Within Phase I we assumed 80 acres of business development, 17 acres of which is to be developed by the Virginia Department of Transportation, and 25 acres of light industrial development north of the railroad and just west of Route 37. For the business area we have assumed primarily retail uses. We have estimated 100 employees at the VDOT site and assumed 500 employees in the industrial area. The resulting total is roughly 420,000 gallons per day of sewer demand. For Phase II we have assumed a total of 165 acres of mixed use development. Projecting water usage for this phase is particularly speculative given the broad range of potential uses under the planned unit development scenario which is being recommended. We have assumed 80 acres of retail uses, 40 acres of office use and 40 acres of residential development at three units per acre. With this breakdown of land use we project a waste water production of 530,000 gallons per day. This assumes 400 gallons per day per household for the residential development. Round Hill Community 9 Draft Land Use flan In Phase III we have used 25 acres of residential development at a density of one unit per acre resulting in 10,000 gallons per day of sewer demand. Sewage flow generated by existing commercial establishments was estimated based on inquiries of the owners. Eighteen of the 29 businesses (including churches) were contacted to obtain a description of the facilities. Demand for the remaining uses was estimated based on similar known uses. Overall, existing commercial facilities would generate an estimated demand of 24,000 gallons per day. The approximately 180 residential units, existing in the area of the community to be served, would be projected to use another 54,000 gallons per day. Round Hill Community Center Land Use Plan Projected Sewer Demand Area Land Use Gln\da Phase I 80 acres retail 406,000 43 industrial 15,000 Total Projected GPD Phase I 421,000 Phase H 80 acres retail 438,000 40 acres offices 45,500 40 acres residential 48,000 Total Projected GPD Phase II 531,500 Phase III 45 acres retail 235,000 25 residential units 10,000 Total Projected GPD Phase III 245,000 Existing 29 businesses 24,000 300 homes 54,000 Total Projected GPD Existing Uses 78,000 LL Total vroiected GPD Community 1,275,5001 Round Hill Community 10 Draft Land Use Plan This scenario results in a total demand of 1,275,500 gallons per day which exceeds the available capacity by roughly 322,000 gallons per day. Obviously, the square footage and/or employment used for the estimate are not attainable given the limited available capacity. This scenario merely helps to determine the upper limits of development based on available sewer capacity. It is intended that standards will be developed which result in more acreage being set aside as open space or landscaped/green areas and that the square footage estimates we have used prove to be too high. In light of the potential for sewer demand within the first two phases to exceed available capacity for the conununity, it is suggested that a policy be adopted that would set aside an appropriate amount of capacity to serve the existing uses within the community. Based on the estimates above, this amount would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 to 150,000 gallons per day. The intent would be to reserve capacity for existing dwellings and business, many of which are located in the third phase of the proposed land use plan. In this way, development within the first two phases could not out strip capacity before sewer is ever made available to existing structures and uses. Details would need to be worked out concerning how long after sewer is made available to existing structures that this capacity would be reserved. Water The Sanitation Authority indicates that they would have the capacity to service the Round Hill Community. A recent proposal to construct a water tower on the west side of Route 37, just north of the boundary of the Community Center will bring another potential water source very near the community. Current County policies however, would prohibit the City from serving areas outside of the City's boundaries. Roads As with development proposals within the current Urban Development Area, construction of new collector roads and the installation of sewer and water within the Community Center would be the responsibility of the developer. Each of the phases contain segments of collector roads which are intended to channel traffic to and from a few key intersections along Route 50. These collectors are seen as a preferred alternative to permitting an excessive number of individual business entrances on Route 50. The locations of collectors roads shown are not intended to be precise. Development proposals submitted for specific areas would be expected to provide for roads which make the connections indicated and serve the intended function, but would not necessarily follow the precise alignments shown. As the areas develop, signalization will be required where collectors intersect Route 50. Procedures already in place would require that development pay a pro rata share toward the cost of such facilities. Round Hill Loninitinity 11 Draft Land Use Plan Summary The driving force behind the development of this land use plan has been a desire to provide a solution to the waster water treatment problem which has existed in Round Hill for sometime. The problems in Round Hill are not unique. There are other areas of the County that face similar issues. Though some landowners may feel otherwise, the residents of Round Hill are fortunate in that their location makes an extension of public sewer and water a potential solution. The extension of central sewer is seen by the committee as the most feasible, and in the long run, responsible means of providing sewage treatment to the Community. With this in mind, the question immediately becomes one of how this can be accomplished in a fiscally responsible way. Allowing some private development that would bare the cost of extending utilities seems the only viable option. The focus then becomes one of attempting to balance the need for this development with the desire to protect and preserve certain aspects of the existing community. The recommendations contained within this land use plan attempt to allow for growth within the Community Center without overwhelming, and ultimately destroying, the features that distinguish the community from the surrounding County. In particular, the plan attempts to steer large scale commercial and residential growth away from the core area of the community, maintain large amounts of open space, and insure that new development within the core area is in keeping with the scale of the community. The plan also calls for a transportation network that feeds traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages a proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself. While the plan does not offer specific design standards or land use regulations, it suggests features that should be examined and calls for the development of a new zoning district that is tailored to Round Hill. Route 50 West should not become a typical commercial strip. A green space should be maintained along either side of the road and a pedestrian/bikeway should be incorporated into development plans. It is hoped that many of -the standards proposed, once developed, will be applicable to other Community Centers throughout the County. Pivuncl Hill Lorrurruuit1 12 Draft Laid Use Plan COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 (MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: Master Development Plan Informal Discussion DATE: November 4, 1994 Staff has received a request from Mr. T. Merchant McDonald, P.E., of Harris, Smariga & Associates, Inc. to conduct an informal discussion with the Planning Commission. The purpose of this discussion is to advise the Planning Commission of issues associated with a new master development plan for the Whitehall Business Park. This master development plan is required as part of the rezoning proffer associated with this property. Mr. McDonald is interested in receiving input from the Planning Commission that will assist him in plan preparation for formal review. Mr. McDonald will provide visual displays of this project during the informal discussion. This property is located on the south side of Rest Church Road (Route 669) and is adjacent to Interstate 81. The Planning Commission recently approved a rezoning request for several properties in the front of this business park in conjunction with the Flying J project. Please contact our department prior to the scheduled meeting if you have any questions. 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 01/21/1994 02:21 3016624906 HSA PAGE 01 Bhrri%,&m3n -&Affiodabeshic AWN av—.0-4-mmurvWYOM 41 East AN SOkft St**~Nk*. MD 21701 (301) M -448x. FAX (301) 662-4908 November 3, 1995 County of Fredetick Departmew of Planning & Development P. O. BOX 601 Winchmsr, Viro" 22604 Attn.- Mr. Evan A. Wyatt Re: Flying I Tuve! Plaza Dear Evan: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Flying 1 master plan in your offices yesterday. We found your review informative and helpfUl. This letter is to serve as a request for inclusion on the November 15th agenda for informal Planning Commission review of the Flying J Project. As we discussed, we will submit the formal Master Plan Application following the informal review and bypass the Technical Review Meeting. Thwks for your consideration. Vary truly yours, T. Merchant McDonald, P. E. We went TNWmmm:wyatt-l.doc cc: Wayne Crow Post-tt• Fax Note 7671 T* r--VlqAJ W!4a-rl— F-- M 6114/L/i co.io"X. Co. phwe 0 PWne # Fax x Fax