The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 12-01-93 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FILE C Py FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia DECEMBER 1, 1993 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Meeting Minutes of October 6 and October 20, 1993 ................ A 2) Monthly and Bimonthly Reports ...................... . ...... B 3) Committee Reports .................................... C 4) Citizen Comments ..................................... D PUBLIC HEARINGS 5) Rezoning application #004-93 of Hunts Cycle Shack to rezone 1.05 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) for the sales and service of motor cycles and the sales of used motor vehicles. This property is located eight miles west of Winchester on Northwestern Pike (Route 50 West) in the Back Creek District. (Mr. Miller) ......................................... E 6) Conditional Use Permit #011-93 of White Properties for an off premise business sign. The sign will be situated on property located at the intersection of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Stickley Drive in the Opequon District. (Mr. Miller) ......................................... F 7) Updates to the 1994 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. (Mr. Tierney) ........................................G 2 MISCELLANEOUS 8) Discussion regarding open space requirements in The Summit Subdivision. (Mr. Lilley) ......................................... H 9) Discussion regarding the status of the Route 642 Realignment Project (Mr. Tierney) ........................................I 10) Other (no attachment) 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 6, 1993. PRESENT: Planning CommissionuLpresent were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District; Robert Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison; and James Barnett, Winchester City Liaison. Plaunjn& Staff =sent were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; Ronald A. Lilley, Planner H; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director ALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - AUG11ST 16, 1993 Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the minutes of August 16, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 1 1293 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Carper, the minutes of September 1, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CP&PS) Mrs. Copenhaver said that two public meetings were held on the Comprehensive Plan. She reported that attendance by the citizenry was very poor at both meetings. Development Review & Regmia_t ons Subcommittee (DR R Mr. Thomas reported that the Subcommittee watched a slide presentation on corridor appearance given by the Planning Department. He said that the committee discussed options that could be considered for zoning ordinance changes to improve the appearance of the county's corridors. r•J!Ir Ii '�i� Mr. Thomas reported that the Transportation Committee held a public hearing on the six-year secondary road plan. He said that the plan was approved, with some minor changes, for passing to the Board of Supervisors. SUBDIVISIONS Subdivision Application #005-93 of Lake H lida. Sg&fion 1B to subdivide 28 lots, zoned R5 (Residential Recreational) for single-family detached homes. This property is located one mile southeast of Redland Road (Route 701) and is identified with PIN #18 -A -28A in the Gainesboro District. Action - Denied Commissioner Carper said that he would abstain from discussion and vote because of a possible conflict of interest. mr. Miller read the background information and staff report. The staff report indicated that the open space in this development was a major issue and the staff believed it should be resolved. The staff report stated that the zoning ordinance required 35% open space and no more than 50% of that space is allowed in environmental areas or steep slopes. It was 3 noted that the accounting of open space submitted by the applicant did not identify open space that met the definition in the zoning ordinance; and, to the best of the staff's knowledge, none of the open space was ever dedicated for the sole use of the property owners. The land indicated by the applicant as open space was not freely accessible to the residents of the Summit and may in fact be developable property. The sewer and water issue was also a major concern by the staff. The staff report indicated that the DEQ (Dept. of Environmental Quality) approved the proposed subdivision for additional hookups to the water system based on the fact that the application stated there were 325 homes hooked to the water system. Staff reported that county records clearly show there are 477 houses in this development. Staff explained that DEQ reports using a figure of 400 gpd (gallons per day) for each residence and the system has the capability to provide 217,000 gpd. 325 houses would use 130,000 gpd and using the 400 gpd per household, that would be about 60% of the available capacity used. Based on the 477 figure, the use would be 190,800 gpd or 87.6 % of the available capacity, which appears to the staff to be well past the point where additional capacity should have been identified and plans submitted for upgrade. The staff also reported that, based on information received from DEQ, the sewer system has exceeded its design capacity on more than one occasion over the last year and a half. Mr. Miller said that the staff was recommending denial of the subdivision due to the potential problems with water availability and the uncertainties surrounding the open space issues. Mr. John Lewis of Lewis & Associates came forward as the representative for this subdivision. Mr. Lewis stated that with regard to water availability, the Office of Water Programs determined in May of 1993 that the capacity of the water system at the Summit was adequate for the proposed 28 lots. With regards to open space, Mr. Lewis said that the Summit was laid out in the early 70's and at that time, there were no requirements for master plans. He said that he has attempted to satisfy R5 open space requirements with this design, but it is very difficult. Mr. Jim Elster, a Summit property owner and President of the Friends of the Summit, said that the Friends of the Summit were not opposed to Mr. Bayliss's subdivision. Mr. Elster said that excluding the golf course, the Summit does indeed have a deficit of open space by the 35 % rule, but Mr. Bayliss's project would not close that deficit if it were denied. Mr. Elster felt there was not a lot of concern about the lack of open space at the Summit by the Board of Directors, the Homeowners Association, or the Friends of the Summit. He personally felt, tWVhe�v rrre was a lot of open space at the Summit because there were a lot of empty lots. Mr. Elster said that he would lean towards support of Mr. Bayliss's project. Mr. Elster added that he was not familiar with the water and sewer issues and would not comment on that issue. 4 There were no other public comments. Chairman Golladay said that he received a letter from Lauwna and Linden Bohrer, homeowners living approximately one half mile from the entrance to the Summit, who felt that their well water supply was being affected by water use at the Summit. A motion was made by Mr. DeHaven, seconded by Mr. Marker, and unanimously passed to make the letter a part of the official record. (Attached at end of minutes.) Mr. Watkins felt the issue of open space was one of inadequate plan information. He said that the applicant needed to show how the ordinance requirements were being met either in terms of the current requirements or by being grandfathered. Several issues were raised by the Commissioners. One issue of concern was that of vested rights. It was stated that the R5 zoning category survived the comprehensive downzoning and the change to the RP zoning category. The Commissioners felt that the R5 category was left intact for a reason and it may have been determined that downzoning of the R5 category would not hold up in court because there were vested rights. It was also brought out that pumping 150,000-200,000 gallons of water per day from a concentrated area could tend to draw the aquifer down somewhat and impact surrounding wells. The question was raised as to who was responsible for the protection of surrounding landowners with -water wells. The ownership of the golf course was also mentioned. It was stated that the golf course was a separate corporation owned by a group of stockholders. The staff had determined that this could not be considered open space because the residents did not have free access to this area. It was generally agreed that it would be in the best interest of future developers, the residents of the Summit, and the county to have a master development plan for the Summit in order to put this development into the proper perspective. Mr. DeHaven made a motion to deny the subdivision application until a master development plan for the entire Summit development was submitted and until water availability for the entire development was proven. This motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of Subdivision Application #005-93 of Lake Holiday, Section 1B to subdivide 28 lots for single-family homes until a master development plan for the entire Summit development is submitted and until proof is submitted that water will be available for the entire Summit development. (Mr. Carper abstained.) 5 Subdivision Application #008-93 of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 8 & 9 to subdivide 36 lots for single family detached homes. This property is identified as PIN 7511--1-3-51, part of PIN 75-A-72, and part of 75-A--67. The property is located east of Stephens City in the Opequon District. Action - Approved The staff noted that the proposed subdivision of Sections 8 & 9 of Phase IV of this project was in conformance with the approved MDP. Detailed site plans for Lots 156, 157, 160, 165, 166, 172, 173, 184, 186, 187, and 188 were requested by the County Engineer and the staff was in support of this requirement because of the potential drainage problems in this area. Staff stated that past erosion and sedimentation control problems have been alluded to by the County Engineer and the Soil & Water Conservation Technician. The staff felt that the developer needed to pay close attention to this area and insure that proper E&S controls were established and maintained. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., P.E., with G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., was the design engineer for this project. Mr. Maddox said that this is the section where a second connection will be made into the road system to provide two ways in and out of the Fredericktowne development. The Commissioners had concerns with the developer continuing with roadside ditches into the new sections when the revised ordinance called for curb & gutter. They felt that a transition section was challenging, but certainly could be done in the remainder of the undeveloped area. Mr. Maddox felt it was not appropriate to change the existing neighborhood pattern, such as in this case, because the design pattern was successful and there was homeowner acceptance of the situation. He felt that the Commission should implement the curb & gutter in a new, separate area either by a major drainage course or a road. Mr. Maddox added that because of the considerable design work and agency review already completed on this section, this project would be set back many months. After some further discussion of the matter, the Commission decided to allow this section without the curb and gutter, but put the applicant on notice that future sections would have to meet current ordinance requirements. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Carper, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve Subdivision Application #008-93 of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 8 & 9, as presented, by the following majority vote: 59 - YES YES (TO APPROVE): Morris, Shenk, Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper, Light, ,NO-. Thomas PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #009-93 of Marshall A. Ritenour for a cottage occupation to operate a fencing contracting business. This property is identified as PIN 86-A-167 and is located on the north side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), east of Stephens City, in the Shawnee District. Action - Approved Mr. Ron Lilley stated that this CUP was tabled from the Planning Commission's September 1, 1993 meeting to allow the Commissioners time to visit the site. Mr. Lilley said that concerns were raised about this business being able to operate within the necessary limits, including the proposed limits on the hours of operation. Mme, Marshal A. Ritenour, the applicant, said that he has erected a 56' solid privacy fence along his property line from the garage to the front of the property. Mr. Ritenour said that he would have no problems meeting the Commission's recommended hours of operation. Mr. Jerry Bowen, adjoining property owner, was satisfied with the privacy fence that Mr. Ritenour installed. Mr. Bowen asked if the storage building in the rear of the property, owned by Mr. Wise, was also a business establishment because there was a business sign displayed on it. Mr. Alfred Wise, the property owner, said that he uses the building at the rear of the property for storage only and does not operate a business from that location. Mr. Bob Morris said that the property under consideration was in his district (Shawnee) and he felt that the privacy fence was an improvement to the appearance of the property. Mr. Morris also said that he had not seen any vehicles, other than what he perceived to be family vehicles, in front of the property. Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Department does hereby unanimously approve Conditional Use Permit #009-93 of Marshall A. Ritenour for a cottage occupation to operate a fencing contracting business with the following conditions: N 1. Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 2. All cutting and assembly of materials shall be done within the completely enclosed building. 3. Any materials stored outdoors shall be completely screened from view with a solid fence. Outdoor storage shall be limited to 120 square feet. 4. Parking for off-site employees shall be limited to three vehicles, which must be kept behind the residence. Rezoning Application #003-93 of Woodside Estates to rezone 28 ± acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single-family detached homes. This property is identified as PIN 86-A-20 and is located west of and adjacent to Double Church Road (Route 641) in the Opequon District. Action - Denied W—Tierney said that the applicant submitted a revised proffer statement after the staff's original review of the application. The revised proffer statement increased the amount of money to be provided for schools and parks & recreation and slightly reduced the amount for fire protection so that the amounts now proffered in the revised statement matched the Planning Department's impact model projections in terms of cost. Mr. Tierney said that the only outstanding issue remaining at this point was traffic. Mr. Bill Tisinger, attorney, was representing Mr. James L. Bowman and Mr. Fred L. Glaize, the applicants and contract owners of the property. He said that the property is owned by Mrs. Shirley G. Ritenour, who was present. Mr. Tisinger stated that this property was located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and since the parcel of land was adjacent to other commercial and residential areas, it was appropriate to be rezoned at this time. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the design engineers for this project, gave a brief slide presentation of the site. With regards to the traffic issue, Mr. Tisinger said that the proposed development would increase the number of trips on Route 641 by 30%. He said that since Route 641 is not a heavily traveled road at this point, a 30% increase will. not create a severe or major traffic problem there. It was also noted that the traffic light at the intersection of Route 277 and Route 641 would be operating at "above-average" efficiency. Chairman Golladay called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak and the P following people came forward to speak in opposition: Mr. Lawrence Fagg, resident of the Opequon District, was opposed to the continual creeping development down Route 641. He felt there was already a tremendous amount of development along Route 277 and he also felt that the traffic in the area was a serious one. Mr. Fagg was concerned about pollution from the increased automobile traffic and he also questioned the impact on the stand of existing trees on the property in question. Mr. John Stezell, resident on Route 641, felt that the rural people were caught up in urban sprawl. He said that the traffic in this area was busy and a 30% increase in traffic would create a dangerous situation. Mr. Stezell said that the proposal would create a negative visual impact on the area. He concluded by saying that Frederick County's identity was agriculture and the agricultural/open land needed to be protected. Mr. Herbert Painter, resident on Route 641, said that if the County approved this rezoning, it would set a precedent for rezoning the adjacent parcels owned by Joel Stowe, Jim Bowman, and Fred Glaize. He said that if all these parcels were rezoned, it would turn their agricultural community into a "Fairfax -type" community and the citizens would have to pay for additional community facilities such as roads, schools, fire & rescue, etc. Mrs. Shirley G. Ritenour, the owner of the property, said that during the last reassessment of r'rederick County property, her land was increased in assessed value by $173,700. Mrs. Ritenour said that she was a widow and lived on the property in a 33 -year old house. She said that both she and her late husband were upset by the large increase because of their age and because they had lived in Frederick County all their lives. She said that they went to the reassessment board and were told that they owned a valuable piece of property. Mrs. Ritenour wondered who the property was valuable to. She asked that if she could not get this parcel rezoned, will she have to continue living there and pay the high taxes? Mrs. Caroline Bowman, a Lakeside property owner, said that the roads were not being upgraded as fast as the area was being developed and also, the drainage problem had not been addressed. She stated that before more agricultural land is rezoned, the county needs to address both of these existing problems. Mr. Bev Teets, adjoining property owner in the Meadows subdivision, said that as a volunteer fire and rescue member, he felt that the increased traffic would be felt. He said that the intersection at Route 636 and 277 was very serious and there has been about three accidents in the last ten days at the entrance to the Meadows. He said that entering and exiting either Ridgefield or the Meadows was a problem. Mr. Teets felt that the intersection at Jamesway needed to be addressed. Regarding run-off, he said that Route 641 occasionally floods. Mr. Teets said that residents behind Woodfield Avenue, on Jason Drive and Sherando Lane, will feel an impact from the increased stormwater run-off. Mrs. Lois White, property owner on Route 641, said that if development 9 continued down her road, people would be forced off their land just like Mrs. Ritenour. She said that the tax rates will increase and those that own substantial acreage, which is often elderly people, will be forced to sell their land. Mrs. White said that the property owners are being exploited by the developers, the assessors, and the contractors. Mrs. White said that continued tax increases present an ever increasing woe to the elderly people Mr. Tisinger's rebuttal centered around the fact this property was located in an area designated for urban development by the Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners were divided in their opinions about the rezoning of this property. Some of the points made in favor of the rezoning were: The property was located in the UDA of the Comprehensive Plan; it was adjacent to commercial and residential areas; public facilities were in place to handle the development; and the property was being assessed by Frederick County as developable property. Some of the Commissioners felt that rezoning was not appropriate at this time because it would set a precedent for the rezoning of several large adjacent tracts also located in the UDA; the traffic was already congested on Route 277 and various intersections in the area; and the citizens in the area did not want to see more rural land rezoned. There was debate among the Commissioners about whether the timing was right for rezoning of this parcel at this time. Therefore, upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Carper, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning Application #003-93 of Woodside Estates to rezone 28+ acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single-family detached homes by the following majority vote: YES ,(TQ ,DENY): Morris, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper, Light, Golladay NO.. Shenk, Thomas, Romine, Wilson, DeHaven An amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance), Section 165-58, Intent, and Section 165-62.1, Gross Density. Action - Approved Mr. Wyatt said that the staff had received a response concerning the proposed amendment from the Top of Virginia Builders Association (TOV) and they have agreed with the overall principle, but have expressed specific concerns about the requirements specified in the residential separation buffer. He said that they feel that if mixed-use housing is to be encouraged, different standards are needed for that type of buffer. Mr. Wyatt said that they also suggested having a 20 -acre area, instead of a 10 -acre area, as the largest sized lot that can have 10 more than 50% multi -family. Finally, they expressed concerns regarding homeowners associations. Mr. Wyatt said that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee felt that they could work with the TOV and address their concerns separately from this actual amendment. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Department does hereby unanimously approve the amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165-58, Intent, and Section 165-62.1 Gross Density, as follows: 165-58 Intent C. It is the intent of this Article to allow a mixture of housing types on the land within an approved master development plan. Within this Article, the permitted multifamily development percentages are identified. Multifamily housing types are allowed only when they -adjoin similar uses or are properly separated from different uses. The preliminary master development plan shall specify the amount and percentages of all proposed housing types. The preliminary master development plan requires specific approval of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 165-62.1 Multifamily Housing A. The permitted gross density of developments that are ten (10) acres or less in size may include more than fifty percent (50%) multifamily housing types. B. The permitted gross density of developments that are more than ten (10) acres and less than fifty (50) acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to fifty percent (50%) multifamily housing types. C. The permitted gross density of developments that are over fifty (50) acres in size shall be permitted to contain to forty percent (40%) multifamily housing types. An amendment to the Development Review Fee Schedule for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) and Variance and Appeals Applications, and to establish a fee schedule for Minor Site Plan Revisions. 11 Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that the staff presented a proposal to increase various application fees at the Commission's September 1, 1993 meeting. After discussion of those fee amendments, the Commission instructed the staff to bring the proposal back for public hearing. Those fee amendments were: Board of Zoning Appeals Applications $250; Conditional Use Permits $500; Minor Site Plans $500. Some members of the Commission felt that the proposed $500 for CUPS was too high because profit margins on most CUP operations was not that high. It was suggested that the requirements for CUPS may need reviewed. Some members felt it was hard to justify having other tax payers foot the bill for someone's permit application. Mr. Marker moved to amend the fee for CUPs to $250. This motion was seconded by Mr. Light and was approved by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE):, Shenk, Thomas, Wilson, DeHaven, Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper, Light NO: Romine Upan motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve an amendment to the Development Review Fee Schedule for Conditional Use Permits and Variance and Appeal Applications, and to establish a fee schedule for Minor Site Plan Revisions, as follows: 1. Board of Zoning Appeals Applications (Variance or Appeal) - $250 2. Conditional Use Permits - $250 3. Minor Site Plans - $500 The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Morris, Shenk, Thomas, Wilson, Romine, Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper, Light NO: DeHaven 12 INFORMATION BROCHURES The staff presented a series of informational brochures that were created to aid the general public in understanding regulations enforced by Frederick County and the options they may have where these regulations are concerned. The brochures covered such topics as how to go about obtaining a building permit, how to subdivide RA land, the procedures involved in rezoning land, the procedures involved in applying for a variance or seeking an appeal, how to develop land in the suburban zoning districts, and how to obtain a conditional use permit. The staff asked the Commission to contact them with any comments or suggestions. No action was needed by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT p.m. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:00 Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman October 2, 1993 3o b Watkins r-anning Department 9 Court Square Wincnester, Va. 226u1 Dear 30b, Our home was buil in 1976-1977 on 495 Red Oak road (old 522.E now Rt. 771) 1.1 mile north oc cross Junction in rrederick ;;ounty, ` i-rginia. At that time Soirley's Weil Drilling dug our well with an excellant water supply. During January of 1993, we lost use of our water, needless to say, t2is was upsetting and quit an adjustment to make. The Old saying, "You dont miss the water 'till the well runs dry," is more than true. R & R rum Specialist pulled our Weil pump and wnat a discovery tney made. previously our well of 140' contained lu6- or water, now only 26' remained. Tne water oad dropped 8u' as shown on tine pipe twat was Pulled. They added 2J' of pipe, lea -vino 1' off bottom. In September of 1993, our water flow stopped aga_n. �:resen� tl;le tnere i5 s --me c.L0udy °va.ter. Just enough to wash dishes by band in a dish pan --no more water, soul pump ofZ anc wait for more to accumulate or tlusn the toilet and same procedure. We are g<,ting drinzing waterfrom a neighbor acd buyl.ng bottied water. There had always been enough water for ail normal household. use. 1n past years, during dry tines, 1 had watered 2-3 hours at a time, a productive garden and large yard wita lots of flowers. Done of that this past summer, the garde:: dried up and some flowers were lost --not enougb water for us aria thea. We nave obtained a well permit to get the present well dug deeper for a clear constant flow of water. The drllier will get to us _n a :re 10 days. ;she a .. e t est t;, :"'T"":{y:l]ate OS for additional feet to be dug will be severw_ theusaad dollars. As a Homeowner and Tax payer of Frederick Oounty, this is certainly not an item that we had in budget. We are told by the Kerns 3rotbers of R & R Pump Specialist that tae last two deep wells with extra horse power pumps (dug and installed last fall Tri the Summit) will pull under- ground water from 3 to 5 miles around the Summit area. We are located about one half mile from the entrance to the Summit. Curs is not an isolated case. Sooner or later this will affect ail homeowners and businesses in ab -extensive area of nortnern Frederick ;;ounty and even into an area of West Vlr-= n a west of the Summit- ' Upon asking people, iiving closer to the Summit than we do, about their well and water supply, I found six (6) homeowners who had recently dug their well deeper (at great expense to them, not a budget item for them either); with one (1) homeowner who dug a completely new well (at even greater expense to him). ven with new or deeper dug wells, it is no guarantee our webs want go dry again when the Summit has both large pumps fully operational. .or. .as more building is done at the Summit, demand for water being greater, more wells dug with large pumps.. existing wells of homeowners outside the Summit will go dry again. When people sell property, homes are built, wells dug, no one is telling this problem of water, they find this out the hard way. Sa.-Ae for the buyer of existing homes with a well, buyer finds this problem out iater, at much additinal expense to the,: Questions: C-an building be sowed down or stopped in develop- ments like the Summit? Can compensation to homeowners for redigging or digging wells be required of tioese developers? Are there local and/or state regulations to help in cases like Lois? if so, are they enforced? if not, can some be put in place to help or protect homeowners now and in toe future? There are over 400 homes in the Summit with more being bunt every year. Can a water treatment plant be built there using water from bake Holiday, thereby relinguishing some of the ground water to homeowners outside the Summit? Sincerely, ,auwana & linden Bohrer 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 20, 1993. PRESENT: Planning Commissioner present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Robert Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison; and James Barnett, Winchester City Liaison. ABSENT: Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BIMONTHLY REPORT/ACTIVITY REPORT A question was raised on the status of the site plan for the Wheatlands wastewater facility which has been pending since 9/12/89. Staff noted that they would check with the applicant. Another question was raised on the status of Route 642. Staff noted that the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution giving VDOT permission to proceed with right-of-way acquisition. Commissioners noted that they have a lot of public inquiry on the matter. The staff said that they would bring in maps to get the Commissioners up-to-date. COMMITTEE REPORTS K Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CP&PS) - 10/11/93 Mrs. Copenhaver said that the CP&PS reviewed a draft of the Comprehensive Plan. She said that the plan will be presented to the Commission at their first meeting in November. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 10/20/93 Mrs. Copenhaver reported that 1) all of the water lines are complete except approximately 100' between Route 50 and Bufflick Road; 2) service laterals are now being installed on Route 522; 3) the quarry will be completed and turned over to the SA on December 10; 4) work is continuing on the Route 522 sewer line, which will run from the Shenandoah MHP back to the airport, and will take in Westview, Bufflick Heights, and Southview (not Papermill Road). Historic a ce AdvisQU B HRAB - 10/19/93 Mz., Watkins reported that the HRAB is continuing to work along the guidelines described in the Comprehensive Plan. The HRAB discussed coordination with the Battlefield Task Force in terms of how they can help that effort. Battlefield Task Force (BTF) Mr. Watkins reported that the BTF had its second meeting and they working on organizational issues. Mr. Watkins said that the County has received a grant from the National Parks Service to support the effort to prepare a battlefield preservation plan. Planning mmi i n Institute,Roanoke, Virginia Mr. Morris thanked the Commission and staff for the opportunity he had to attend the Planning Commission Institute sponsored by the Virginia Citizens Planning Association and Virginia Tech. Mr. Morris said it was very informative, interesting, and rewarding. SUBDIVISIONS 3 Subdivision Application #009-93 of Stonewall Industrial Park,Lot 43, to subdivide one lot for industrial use. This property is identified as PIN #43-19-43 and is located 600' northeast of the intersection of McGhee Road and Welltown Road (Route 661) in the Gainesboro District. Action - Approved Mr. Miller read the background information and staff report. He said that the issues of drainage and stormwater management discussed during the MDP approval will be further addressed at the site nlan staLye. a a.a Mr. Tom Gilpin, with Lenoir City Company of Virginia, the owner, was present to answer questions from the Commission. There were no citizen comments. The Commissioners were of the opinion that the lot proposed was in conformance with the approved master development plan and that all ordinance requirements had been complied with. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Subdivision Application #009-93 of Stonewall Industrial Park, Lot 43, to subdivide one lot for industrial use in the Gainesboro District. DISCUSSION WITH WELLING -1 -ON H JONES. DIRECTOR OF THE FREDERI K COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY, N IN A PROPOSAL TO EXPAND THE PARKINS MILL FACILITY Action - Approval Mr. Wellington H. Jones, Director of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, was present to bring the Commission up-to-date on the Parkins Mill expansion project. This expansion would increase the capacity of the Parkins Mill facility from its current capacity of a 1/2 million gpd (gallons per day) to two million gpd. He stated the design is now complete and plans have been submitted to the State Health Department for approval. Mr. Jones said that if the plans are approved by the State Health Department by the end of the year, this project can be bid out during the winter of 1994, constructed in spring, and be completed in mid 1995. Mr. Jones said that upon completion of this expansion, the Authority will be able to close the two lagoons in Stephens Run that serve the Fredericktowne and Stephens City area and transfer that wastewater to this plant for treatment. 4 Mr. Jones said that the current plant has a buffer requirement of 300'. He said that the expansion does not take in considerable new area in the buffer zone, however, it does take in areas of highway right-of-way, steep slope, and floodplain. Mr. Jones felt that the surrounding area will not be impacted and he was working with the Planning staff to see if they could continue to use the 300' buffer. Mr. Carl Lay, with Rust Environment & Infrastructure, presented the site plan of the project to the Commission. The Commissioners had questions regarding storm water flows and holding times and those questions were adequately addressed by Mr. Lay and Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones requested that the Planning Commission allow staff administrative approval authority for the site plan once all issues have been addressed. Chairman Golladay noted that a letter had been submitted by the Town of Stephens City expressing their support of the expansion project. Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the Commission unanimously voted to make the letter a part of the official record. (letter attached at end of minutes) There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously authorize the staff to administratively approve the site plan for the expansion of Parkins Mill. IX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mr. Watkins presented the 1994-1995 Six Year Secondary Road Plan that was approved by the Transportation Committee at their public hearing on September 20. Mr. Watkins said that four new projects were added to the plan following public comment at the hearing. Those projects included Route 836 which was added to the hardsurface road improvement projects and Routes 704, 682, and 689, which were added under incidental construction. The Commission discussed changing the name of the plan. They felt that the name "Six Year" Plan was not really accurate, since projects are not completed in six years, and it was confusing to the public. Staff noted that the name was not mandated for the county. It was suggested that the name, "Secondary Road Improvement Plan" be used. Chairman Golladay recognized a letter from the Town of Stephens City urging the approval of the plan and which stated that their items have been included in the plan since 1986. 5 Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 1994-1995 Secondary Road Improvement Plan with the amendment that the title of the plan be changed to omit "Six Year." PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Mr. Miller stated that the Planning Commission's Annual Retreat will be held on Saturday, November 13, at the Country Inn in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. Mr. Miller requested that the Commission fill out the information sheets and mail them back to him as soon as possible. ADJOURNMENT p.m. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 7:45 Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman 4 TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY P. 0. BOX 250 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22555-0250 October 14, 1993 Mr. Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning Department Post Office Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 RE: Public Hearing - October 29, 1993 Dear Mr. Wyatt: The Town of Stephens City has approximately 1300 water and sewer customers. By Consent Special Order issued by the Department of Environmental Quality (State Water Control Board), the Stephens City Wastewater Plant is to be closed by 1996. Wastewater will then be treated at the expanded Parkins Mill Treatment facility. For this reason, it is essential that the expanded Parkins Mill be granted approval by the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Sincerely yours, Michael K. Kehoe (l Town Administrator/Engineer Town of Stephens City MKK/jjb M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report DATE: November 19, 1993 (1) Rezonin s Pendia dates are submittal dates 6/08/90 Shaw Church Flex Tech Twin Lakes 4/04/90 Shaw RA to B2/RP Unimin Corp. 8/09/93 BkCk RA to EM Woodside Estates 08/27/93 Opeq RA to RP Hunts Cycle Shack 10/07/93 BkCk RA to B2 (2) Rezonin s Approved: dates are BOS meeting dates None (3) Rezonin s Denied: dates are BOS meeting dates None (4) Conditional Use Permits Pending:_ (dates are submittal dates) Stacy Conard 10/11/93 Opeq Cottage Occup -Cabinet and Woodworking White Properties 11/02/93 Opeq Off Premise Sign (5) Conditional Use Permits Approved: (dates are approval dates) Marshall Ritenour 10/27/93 Shaw Cottage Occup. -Fencing Contracting (6) site Plans Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. 9/12/89 Opeq Trmt.facil Grace Brethren Church 6/08/90 Shaw Church Flex Tech 10/25/90 Ston Lgt. Industrial Lake Centre Red Star Express Freeton Salvation Army Norandax 2 05/15/91 Shaw Lines 05/24/91 Ston 04/27/92 Opeq 12/03/92 Ston 10/28/93 Shaw Townhouses Whse. Addition Townhouses Ofc/Housing Showroom/Of c. Addition (7) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates) Jiffy Quick (rev) 11/04/93 Ston Tanks/Canopy Valley Proteins (rev) 11/08/93 Gain Weigh Scales Sheetz 11/09/93 Gain Parking lot & Access Rd (8) Subdivisions Pending: dates are submittal dates Lake Holiday Sec. 1B 08/25/93 Gainesboro (9) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C or BOS approval dates Abrams Point, Phase I 6/13/90 Shawnee Hampton Chase 02/27/91 Stonewall Lake Centre 06/19/91 Shawnee Fredericktowne Est. 10/16/91 Opequon (sections 5, 6 and 7) Coventry Courts 12/04/91 Shawnee Freeton 05/20/92 Opequon Village at Sherando 06/16/93 Opequon Paul Negley 08/11/93 Stonewall Fredericktowne Est., Sec 8 & 9 10/06/93 Opequon Lipscomb Subd. 11/03/93 Gainesboro (10) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates) None (11) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval dates Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 Back Creek James R. Wilkins III 04/14/93 Shawnee Briarwood Estates 08/11/93 Shawnee (12) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin. approval dates) None 3 (13) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending -(submit dates) None (14) BZA Applications Approved: (approval dates) None (15) BZA Applications Denied: Deer Run Homes 11/16/93 Opeq. 7.3' rear -existing house (16) PLANS REC D. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER None F1ONTIILy REPORT ?.on1.lig r1son or. f-- 'I'ot-al �l 3. W611.0 Homes a 0 0 1 1 0 4 10 I 6 4 o 1 0 0 -New Units 1 3 1 H 0 to �. 0 0 0 i 0 0 FA 0 U61 5. Commercial 0 0 0 0 (7 N'inU 22 15 20 O 14 TOTAL PEMITS AP- 'Total 200 PROVED roR ZONING 34 32 29 18 22 135 1. Mulf:1-ramily 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. S1119le-family dwellings 10 13 8 4 $ 43 3. W611.0 Homes 1 21 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 10 I 6 4 2 4 1 0 0 -New Units 1 3 1 0 0 - Tteplacements 1 1 0 0 0 4. Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 5. Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 G. Miscellaneous 22 15 20 14 14 PI:RM1'1'S - CounL-y 'Total 200 1 1 nl MonLhl.y Toblis September 1992 Total 9 9 9 9 VI H is P.If) N 4 of O En VU E +- 5 O U , V U U 24 39 29 21, 23 136 153 194 159 163 190 2 5 0 0 0 7 23 24 22 12 9 - —r 10 10 5 2 5 32 31 58 55 60 63 i 3 5 3 1 2 14 10 171 9 27 25 1 1 2 4 0 1 1 21 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 10 I 6 4 7 4 5 F 4 14 13 5 20 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 00 Hj4 4 5` 9 11 9 18 21 18 16 82 1 I -82 � 93L=8 1771 1992 1993 -County Total -----ResidE_._ial — — -- -Commercial & Industrial Monthly Report t;omparison of Accumulative Monthl Totals 1- 1- 1-9 1-9 1-9 Zoning Januar -Se tember 1 Total - TotalLU1— 1290 12LB— 1987 O .54 O .�4 i W 0 .-i M 4J -4 � .d Cd u Cd v O n 'o H H O N Ix 9 N U N O 0 41 0 0 0 cn ,)i ca cn U41 Cd �' ° �0 c0 TOTAL PERMITS AP- PROVED FOR ZONING 225 296 208 318 267 1314 229 232 199 246 255 11611246 1545 1567 1480 1510 I. Multi -family 0 12 1 150 27 190 2 .13 0 36 40 91 101 212 212 141 9 317 297 393 5,44 2. Single-family 64 119 57 34 73 347 80 62 40 84 51 dwellings 508 509 3. Mobile Homes 18 40 5 4 17 84 14 35 9 3 11 72 92 112 10.0 116 130 - New Units - Replacements 8 10 28 12 2 3 2 6 46 7 13 6 0 6 32 57 1 44 44 61 62 2 11 38 7 22 3 3 5 40 35 68 6 55 6 4. Industrial 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 21 23 14 0 1 5. Commercial 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 3 32 111 38 106 93 6. Miscellaneous 143 124 145 128 149 689 11 133 120 150 121 152 676 703 694 659 609 680 14".11M['.1' S - C0111iLy Tolhl 1600 1200 800 400 0 " V' iy7U 1991 1992 1993 "wwnw� -County Total -Residential — — —r..nmmorrin1 k T_A....}_.t_1 E. PIANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPOR 044 Oct. 1-30 1. GIS Bob Watkins gave a presentation on Frederick County's GIS efforts at the annual Virginia GIS conference in Richmond. Bob Watkins and Mark Lemasters worked with a technician from ESRI on GIS development procedures. Lanny Bise and Evan Wyatt are working on Autocad maps for entry into the GIS. Evan produced maps for the Parks & Recreation Department to apply for Recreational Access Funding for the Sherando Bicycle Facility. He also produced maps for the Warrior Drive relocation project. 2. Route 37 Bob Watkins attended a meeting in Richmond with VDOT and FHWA officials on Route 37. Bob also attended the Planning Commission Transportation Technical Committee meeting. 3. Corridor H Bob Watkins attended the Corridor H Advisory Committee meeting. Discussion of detailed corridor plans continued. 4. WATS Bob Watkins met with Tim Youmans and VDOT officials to discuss the WATS (Winchester Area Transportation Study). 4. Comprehensive Plan The staff is continuing work on the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. HRAB The HRAB discussed ways they may be able to help with the Battlefield Preservation efforts and other priorities they would like to pursue. They agreed to look into tax -incentives for historic preservation over their next couple of meetings. Ron Lilley attended a workshop on Heritage Tourism to learn about methods and opportunities for such efforts in Frederick County. 6. Battlefield Preservation The Battlefield Taskforce held its second meeting. Discussion centered on preservation plan preparation and immediate threats to battlefields. Bob Watkins attended the Civil War Heritage Tourism Committee of the Planning District. 7. CIP Lanny Bise is working on evaluation of Capital Improvement Plan proposed projects. 8. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DR&RS) The DR&RS continued their discussion of RP density issues. The Subcommittee is interested in reviewing design standards for various mixed use developments. They have also requested that the staff provide information and insight to the issue of vested rights. 9. Site Plans Evan Wyatt reviewed site plans for Franklin Mobile Home Park, the Sheetz parking lot addition, the Southeastern Container addition, and Roy's Auto Body addition. The Snappy Lube office addition was administratively approved. Evan had the following site plan -related meetings: a) Met with representatives of Regency Lakes to discuss site plan requirements and issues pertaining to road systems. b) Met with adjoining property owners on Welltown Road to discuss options pertaining to a shared right-of-way. c) Met with representatives of Shenandoah Gas to discuss expansion of their existing facility. d) Worked with FCSA on the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment expansion proposal. e) Met with representatives of Bon Aire Nursing Home to discuss site plan requirements. 10. Professional Development Evan Wyatt conducted a staff seminar on RP density and design standards. Kris Tierney attended the Appalachian Regional Commission's Leadership and Management Program in Roanoke. The program was sponsored in part by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Institute for Leadership and Volunteer Development. 11. Other Issues Ron Lilley is researching the files for The Summit to determine the standards that should apply for a proposed subdivision there. Lanny Bise is updating the violation portion of the Plan Review Database. Evan Wyatt met with the Top of Virginia Builders Association to discuss concerns with pending RP density amendments. Bob Watkins attended the Virginia Planning Association Rappahannock Section meeting. A presentation on fire protection in wooded subdivisions was given. E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT 445 (Nov 1-16) 1. Route 642 Harrington Smith, Kris Tierney and Chuck Maddox met on November 3 with the Sargents and the Heflins to discuss the purchase of needed acreage from the two landowners for the realignment of Route 642. A verbal agreement on price was reached and contracts are being drafted for the transfer of the acreage. 2. GIS The staff continued with the updating of tax maps and zoning maps for GIS production. Evan Wyatt completed the production of five map orders, totaling 11 maps, and Lanny Bise worked on several house numbering problems. Lanny Bise is also working on a GIS brochure. 3. Capital Improvements Plan The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee discussed a draft CIP at their meeting on November 8. The draft was prepared by the staff with the aid of a new evaluation process developed by Kris Tierney. The committee will be meeting again on the 23rd with various department heads to discuss details of some of the requested projects. Kris Tierney met with Trish Ridgeway and George Romine to discuss the CIP process and how the library might best proceed with their efforts to promote a new branch library in the Stephens City area. 4. Battlefield Task Force Bob Watkins and Mark Lemasters attended the Battlefield Task Force meeting. Grant Dehart from the Maryland Project Open Space described the State program to acquire preservation easements and open space around battlefields. 5. Alternative Wastewater Treatment Study Kris Tierney meet with Rob Kinsley of the PDC to review a draft report on the Alternate Wastewater Treatment Study prepared by P.M. Brooks & Associates. A report summary and recommendations will be drafted for discussion with the Technical Advisory Committee. Ultimately, the report, along with the TAC's recommendations, will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 6. Plans Review Evan Wyatt reviewed the Wilkins Final Master Development Plan, the Jamesway Plaza expansion, and the plan for Regency Lakes, Section "C". Lanny Bise reviewed and approved site pians for Jiffy Quick and Valley Proteins. 7. Site Inspections Evan Wyatt conducted site inspections at Shockey Brothers for the expansion of a garage and maintenance building; at Mt. View Church of Christ for a mobile classroom; and at Green Bay Packaging for a manufacturing facility. 8. Other Issues Evan Wyatt met with Roundball Associates to discuss site plan requirements for an addition to their garage and body shop; he met with T.G. Adams to discuss requirements for the development of tourist camps, recreation areas, and resort facilities; and he met with Shenandoah Gas to discuss requirements for expansion of office facilities. Lanny Bise investigated several zoning violations. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Planning Commission Members Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director Hunt's Cycle Shack Rezoning Request November 18, 1993 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 /665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 Subsequent to the Commissions tabling of this request at the November 3, 1993 meeting, staff discussed the Commissions concerns with the applicant's attorney. Attached are the revised proffers resulting from these discussions. The refined proffers limit the use of the property to its present use (motorcycle sales and service), a used car lot with no more than twelve vehicles for sale at any given time, and a residence. The proffers also preclude the use of streamers etc., to attract attention to the property, and limit any sign(s) to those permitted by the RA regulations in place at the time. Please let me know if there are any questions concerning this matter. KCT/slk 9 North Loudoun Sircct P.O. Bov 601 Winchcstcr, VA 22601 Winchcstcr, VA 226W P/C review date: 11/03/93 P/C review date: 12/01/93 REZONING APPLICATION #004-93 HUNTS CYCLE SHACK C/O GARY R. HUNT To Rezone 1.05 acres From RA (Rural Areas) To B2 (Business General) LOCATION: Eight miles west of Winchester on the east side of Northwestern Pike (Route 50) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 28-A-133 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), present use -Hunt's Cycle Shack, CUP for motorcycle sales and service. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas), land use - vacant. PROPOSED USE: Sales and service of motor cycles and sales of used motor vehicles REVIEW EVALUATIONS• Virginia Dept of Transportation No objection to the rezoning of this property. Existing entrances are adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future the entrances may need to be upgraded. Fire Marshal: This is an existing business classified "mercantile" by the BOCA Building Code. Prior to the current use, this was a restaurant use group assemble. There has not been a significant impact on fire/rescue resources in the time the business has been in operation. Stephen R. Holliday Chief, Gore Fire Department: No comment. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objection to the proposed change in use or the rezoning of this property County Engineer: We have no comments at this time. If additional development is proposed for this site, a detailed site plan ?ail- be required. County Attorney: No comments. Planning: The parcel in question has been the site of various Page 2 Hunt Cycle Shack commercial uses for many years and is currently the site of Hunt's Cycle Shack. The business operates under a CUP for motorcycle sales and service. The applicant wishes to expand the use to include the sale of used automobiles. The original CUP was granted under the provision for reestablishing a nonconforming use. Section 165-134 of the Zoning Ordinance permits the reestablishment of a nonconforming use with a CUP. The ordinance stipulates that the use shall be "... of equal or lesser nonconformity than the original use in relation to intensity, type of use, dimensional requirements or other requirements." The CUP limits the activities on the parcel to interior sales and service. The staff's position was that the expansion of the use to include exterior auto sales would increase the intensity of the use of the parcel over that of the original nonconforming use. For this reason the applicant would require a rezoning to B-2 in order to accommodate the desired use. The applicant has proffered that no more than 12 vehicles will be kept for sale on the premises. At a minimum the proffer statement should be reworded to clearly indicate the intended use of the property. As presently worded the sales and service of motorcycles would not be permitted. The staff would note that at the time of his informal discussion with the Commission, the applicant stated that he intended to have no more than three to five cars for sale at any one time. The applicant has also proffered a site plan prior to any structural changes to the building or to the entrance onto Route 50. The Zoning Ordinance would require a site plan for any significant changes regardless of the proffer. Location: The parcel requested to be rezoned is well outside the Urban Development Area. It fronts directly on Route 50 with roughly 700 feet of frontage. Site Suitability: The parcel has basically been carved out of the hillside with the rear of the parcel rising steeply from the elevation of the existing structure and parking area. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by heavy woods. General: The Comprehensive Plan states that: "Certain types of business and industrial uses may be located at scattered rural locations if appropriate access is available and if adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the rural environment can be avoided. Such business locations will primarily be major intersections or locations with recent or existing business activity. Such rural business and industrial uses should be those that provide services to rural areas or that Page 3 Hunt Cycle Shack are more appropriate in rural than in urban areas." None of the review agencies expressed concern over this rezoning. There is little anticipated impact on traffic, the site itself, or on surrounding uses. The major adverse impact would appear to be the visual impact from Route 50 of a used car lot in the otherwise rural area. A rezoning would also set a precedent for this area. In changing the zoning on a particular parcel you potentially change the character of a larger area. The major issue seems to be whether the application sufficiently addresses impacts in such a way that if a precedent is set by approving the rezoning, the Commission would feel comfortable approving other rezonings in rural areas, under similar circumstances, with similar proffers. The proffer statement in no way addresses visual impacts other than to limit the number of automobiles to be displayed at a given time to one dozen. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 11 03 93 PC MEETING: Given the fact that the proposed use does not meet a need of the rural area or is not more appropriate in a rural area than an urban area, has potential negative visual impacts, and is located in a general area which is not appropriate for business uses, the staff recommendation is for denial of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION SUMMARY OF 1113193: The Commissioners were concerned about setting a precedent for future rezonings in this area, however, they noted that this parcel has been the site of various commercial uses for many years. They also felt that the use of this parcel was limited because of its location and size. They were concerned, however, that if the property was rezoned and sold, any business use permitted under B2 zoning could be conducted here and other B2 uses would probably not be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The Commissioners felt that the proffers were not specific enough and did not include Mr. Hunts intended use for the property, which was to continue the use of motor cycle sales & service with the addition of automobile sales. Mr. Hunt said that he would reword the proffer statement and the Commission tabled the rezoning to allow Mr. Hunt some time to accomplish that. Two citizens came forward to speak in favor of the rezoning. One of the citizens pointed out that Mr. Hunt has continued to improve the appearance of the property over the last several years. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 11 3 93: The Commission voted unanimously to table the application for 30 days. (Absent - G. Romine and B. Wilson) REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff: Zoning Amendment Number 00q-9 3 Date Received -?-q 3 Submittal Deadline Ip -$'-q3 Application Date PC Hearing Date - ,3 -q 3L_ BOS Hearing Date /,Z . g -q,3 The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel numbers, tax map numbers, deed book pages and numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, 9 Court Square, Winchester. I. Applicant: Name: U,",JT Address: -61/ S b (,J CS %El? ro A Telephone: 03- g -)- - / Vo o 2. Owner: Name: (? P Address:vifr Y_�-_'i'- Telephone: In addition, the Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: 3. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed from R P to &1-a- 4. Location: The property is located at (give exact directions): LAJ n _ e A4 S. Parcel Identification: 21 Digit Tax Parcel Number: Q goobig000 boo no 000 13 6. Magisterial District: 6 gc k -CREEK 7. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned. Total Area: /'Os- Acres The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be -noted: Acres Rezoned to -Acres Rezoned to Acres Rezoned to v� Acres Rezoned to ;} Frontage: S WTAykO> Feet Depth: 5i -i- N ---AxD Feet ; 8. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed: Conveyed from: m IC N gj -L 7flMj=S J1 EKjPtS 4 -Tu D 17-H off 6 Deed Page: Deed Look Number: 0 9. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses. S 10. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Survey or plat Deed to property Statement verifying taxes Sign receipt Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement 11. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby make application and petition the governing body to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia and do hereby certify that the application and accompanying materials are true and accurate t9 the best of my (our) knowledge. n �. Applicant: Owner: 12. Representation: If the application is being represented by someone other than the owner or application and if questions about the application should be directed to that representative, please list the following. Representative's Name: S, Representative's Phone Number; �-TZ:!33 ) (. --7- 7 -7_ 7 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purposes of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the fol- lowing information on each adjoining property including the 21 -digit tax parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. IName Address and Property Identification 1 7-SPAC LEE +11rJ9A MAEAddress: 601 � N�QTttW T�-nN �C L, U %�r� �Z L L_ G o t2 t r/ln � -z- Property ID : a g O O /9 6 pa 000 O 00 M/5-7 2 A nymo,v0 14, ft) AyH Address: 31,(o EY01 rtr5 R p, W I YJ C )J IFS -&T)e � VA ZZ C" o :2 - Property Property ID :fig 600 A66,6oc oo o a 3 0 3 Rog G -K ry k Address: 60 ( NaRL-r'HW t=S%fiel PK- du t-wLIVJ Property itoYZ t/A-Z2�37 ID:a 0(�D/9o a 4 ES%ELLC 1'�• S'U9QcT 1 Address: JL1919 OWLNE157- RD. IVWESUJLLLc ".ZZ/Z3 Property ID: C0a 1166000000000 13qH 5E(W00 12 Address: R4Ji ,Cir(g S bra 2 (n4. 2 Z co 3 7 Property ID :,,-� g600lq 6606 Doo o 000 l 3 ,$ 6,'14A? -LES j1, DO ' Address: �a73 �Uc/L7iftc��'T-�eN Px _ �r0 /Z E UP, Z -Z G 31 Property ID : a $^600,96 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 00C17 d Address: Property ID: 8 Address: Property ID: 9 Address: Property ID: 10 Address: Property ID: 0 Hunt's Cycle Shack 6115 Northwestern Pike Gore, VA 22737 703-877-1860 September 23, 1993 Kris C. Tierney, .i AICP :J1: Deputy Planning Director Dept. of Planning and Development P. 0. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Impact Study on Parcel "133" Back Creek District Dear Mr. Tierney: Rezoning of Parcel 133 in Back Creek District would not change in any way the following: Education Police Protection Fire & Rescue Protection Parks & Recreation Solid Waste Disposal Other Government Activities Rezoning of this property would not change anything in the Back Creek District. It would, however, increase revenue for Frederick County from the sales of vehicles sold. This business has been here for 52 years and the only thing changing is the rezoning from AR to B-2. All services from the county would remain the same. The building would also remain the same with no changes to the property from its present state. Therefore, impact of the rezoning will in no way be affected. Respectfully submitted, Ga Hunt CC: Charles S. �,IcCandlish File AMENDMENT FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Action: Planning Commission Recommendation of December 1, 1993 Board of Supervisors AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP #00493 of HUNTS CYCLE SHACK WHEREAS, Rezoning application #004-93 of Hunts Cycle Shack was submitted to rezone 1.05 acres, located west of Winchester on Northwestern Pike (Route 50 West), in the Back Creek District, and designated by PIN 28-A-133, from RA (Rural Areas) to 132 (Business General); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on December 1, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this application on 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, That Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 1.05 acres, designated as PIN #28-A-133, from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and property owner: - - - 9 Gary P, .7funt Sheifa 1. blunt 6115 Worth -western Pike Gore, Virginia 22637 November 18, 1993 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Frederick County Planning Commission 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: HUNT'S CYCLE SHACK: 1.05 acres on Route 50, Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map No: 28-A-133 The undersigned, sole owner of land to be rezoned under rezoning request number 004-93, referred to as a Hunt's Cycle Shack rezoning, and the applicant for said rezoning, hereby voluntariUy proffers the following conditions, which shall apply to, and be binding upon, the administrators, assigns, and successors in interest of both the applicant and owners. If the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants said rezoning and accepts the following preferred conditions, these conditions shall apply to the land rezoned, in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code: 1. Uses of the property shall be limited to the following: (a) motorcycle sales and repair; (b) automobile sales; and/or (c) residential. 2. No more than twelve automobiles shall be kept for sale on the premises and not under roof at any one time. 3. No flags, streamers or similar items designed to call attention to the property shall be posted on the premises. 4. Any sign(s) added to the premises shall comply with the RA zoning rules for sign(s) at the time of the addition. 5. An appropriate site plan shall be submitted for approval by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors before any change is made to the structure of the building, or to its access to Route 50. Respectfully pubmitted. Gary Ra Hu t Sheila J. Hunt 9- This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this day of , 1993. A Copy Attest John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator h TO: FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RE: REZONING OF HUNT'S CYCLE SHACK DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1993 We, the undersigned businesses in the Route 50 West area of Frederick County support Hunt's Cycle Shack's request for rezoning. In our opinion, this property should already have been rezoned. The property was built in the late 1940s and has always been used for business purposes throughout the years. Small businesses in Frederick County provide tax revenues to help maintain and improve county services. Small businesses are and will always be the backbone of Frederick County. Therefore, we all encourage your positive consideration to rezone Hunt's Cycle Shack. NAME'OF BUSINESS OWNER SI ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS a OWNER SIGNATURE tw l% ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS z< OWNER SIGNATURE AD ESS NAME OF BUSINESS 6 Zelo /rej-Ta Zt/1r-s'%X,v &- & ADDRESS 0-0�g� V� �43 c� NAME OF BUy9fINE)S A . (,, SI ADD SIGNA ADDRESS Uz SSI- � AtA,-+c) �C'�14i i2 NAME OF BUS/TES! OWNER S G ATURE ADDRESS OATES AUTO SALES 2835 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22603 NAME OF BUSINESS r ff4NER SIGNATURE ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS Qv;A-4, OWNER SIGNATURE �27 6 ► I�` Qr h �. ADDRESS ///� 2,Z.�d� C� NAME OF BUS NESS OWNER SIGN URE S. -U),� - �� - 0 �:z ADDRESS HOGUE CREEK COUNTRY MARKET NAME OF BUSINESS �t- OWNER SIGNATURE A DRESS As VALLEY SIGNS, INC. 5358 Northwestern Pike GORE, VIRGINIA 22637 (703) 877-1511 NAME OF BUSINESS SIGNA ADDRESS r ` NAME O BUSINESS—— ADDRESS , BUSNESS ADDRESS MASTER ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC. NAME OF BUSINESS &OWNE SIGNATU 90.3 /00r ADDRESS ^ a ►w6��1 ?-, ' owm6-gil? ADDRESS (Rovrr- SO NESP') NAME OF BUSINESS " ADDRESS E -SS 1 NAME OF BUSINESS OWNER SIGNATURE ADDRESS F ( A - 7-,. 7'7-603 P/C Review Date: 12/01/93 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 011-93 WHITE PROPERTIES Off Premise Business Sign LOCATION: At the southwest corner of the intersection of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Stickley Drive (Route 1085) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT• Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER 85-A-148 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned B2 (Business General) Land use - Jefferson Bank ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned B1 (Neighborhood Business) and B2 (General Business), Land use - restaurant, retail gas and vacant PROPOSED USE: Off premise business sign REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: In accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, no private advertisement sign can be placed on the State's right-of-way. Prior to erection on private property, a permit may have to be applied for through our District office in Staunton. You may do so by contacting Mr. Larry Curry at 703-332-9098. (Comment sheet was carbon copied to Mr. Curry). Inspections De artment: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 311, Use Group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Piariin-L Department: On-site inspection of this proposed sign location and review of,the proposed drawing location seems to indicate that this location and placement would not impact sight visibility of traffic exiting Stickley Drive onto Fairfax Pike (Route 277). Sign would meet required setbacks if installed in accordance with the submitted plan. Proposed location would also meet the required distances from any other existing business sign. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECEMBER 1, 1993 PC MEETING: Approval with the following condition: 1. The sign must meet all the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia. Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA -. hNy�-Luarut (Tne applicant if the owner NAME: ADDRESS: other) TELEPHONE _- U 10 � ) U(D l- I'110 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 1 1, > 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of vonr- r-;:,ri ..��. 4. The property has a road frontage of� feet and a depth of f feet and consists of (Please be exact) -- acres. 5. The property is owned by o�Y' `� evidenced by deed from as recorded in deed book no. ��,,..�� (previo owner) records of the C1-�— f page Circuit as recorded in the Frederick. Court, County of 6. -14-Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District r Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: `- SE ZONING North , East _ � South West Q v� C 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) sem'%l n �._. 9. It is proposed that .the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and in front of (also across. street from) the property where requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME FS Address 1 Property ID# Q. 14180 �� Address ( --11 Property ID# kpp�2fv Address Property ID# _ Gt,Yr Address - Property ID# Q Address Property ID# Address Property ID# FS W 12. Additional comments, if any., I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your Koperty where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: I 0 40 - 7�: Z7 �01 7F#J7 Z - %f W ig "IN STICKLEY DRIVE .00ATION USE PERMIT ,ALE 1" = 20' 0Q CUP #011-93 WHITE PROPERTIES PIN: 85-A-148 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Direct�O RE: 1994 Comprehensive Policy Plan Draft DATE: November 17, 1993 Enclosed you will find the draft update of the 1994 Comprehensive Policy Plan. As you will recall, significant text additions are highlighted with �. The population, housing, and employment figures have been updated to reflect the most recent data. The entire document has had relatively minor editorial changes made throughout. Other areas of note are: * the history section has been updated, * information has been added on corridor study efforts, * information has been added on the Wastewater Treatment Study for Rural Community Centers, * updated information has been added on our revised Rural Areas (RA) regulations, * a statement has been added to the Transportation section regarding rail corridors, * the information on emergency services has been updated, * an updated statement on the County offices has been added to the Capital Facilities section, * and the information on the County's Impact Model has been updated. Staff would like to request that you recommend approval of the Plan to the Board of Supervisors. If you have any questions concerning changes to the plan or comments you would like to discuss, please let me know. KCT/slk enclosure 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Ron Lilley, Planner H 9(11 SU$T: The Summit/%yliss Subdivision Application — Open Space Requirements DATE: November 17, 1993 This is a follow up to the Subdivision Application of Donald L. Bayliss for 28 lots on 10.7 acres at The Summit, which you considered at your October 6 meeting. That application, which was submitted in July 1993, included a request for exemption from the normal R-5 open space requirement, and the County Planning staff forwarded the application to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial due to potential problems with water availability and uncertainties about open space issues. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (with Carper abstaining) to recommend denial of the application to the Board of Supervisors until an acceptable master plan is presented and the water system is proven to have adequate capacity. The application went to the Board of Supervisors on October 27th with a recommendation from the staff for tabling to allow time for the staff to complete research on the history of The Summit, the existing open space, the degree of vesting involved, and the water situation there. The Board voted to table the application until their December 8 meeting, at which time they must act on the application. The staff has done considerable research and organization of the files on The Summit, along with a technical review of the applicant's request for exception from the normal open space requirements. The research and associated recommendations are detailed in the attached report. The water situation is being addressed separately through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Office of Water Programs. Staff requests that the Planning Commission discuss the attached report and provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the report's recommendations. 9 North Loudoun Strcet P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 THE SUMMIT Report on Open Space Research November 15, 1993 BACKGROUND This report has been prepared at the request of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in response to a subdivision application for Section 1B of The Summit at Lake Holiday to create 28 lots on 10.7 acres. The application includes a request for exemption from the normal R-5 open space requirements. This report addresses the history of The Summit, the existing open space, the amount of open space allowed to be within certain environmental areas, and the degree of vesting involved with master plan and open space requirements. The staff has done considerable research and organization of the files on The Summit, along with a technical review of the applicant's request for exception from the normal open space requirements. The basic findings are summarized below, followed by a summary of options for open space requirements and a recommendation from the staff on how to proceed. FINDINGS The first section of The Summit was approved in 1970. The zoning in effect at that time was R-2 (Residential General), which did not require a master plan or open space. The Summit property was rezoned to R-5 effective November 1, 1973, which required developments to be done in accordance with a master plan and to include 35 % dedicated open space. There was a small portion of the property that was inadvertently not rezoned to R-5, but that was cleared up in June, 1974, so the R-5 zoning has applied to all 1936.4 acres of The Summit property since then. Before November 1973, the subdivision of Sections 1, 2, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 6B, and 8A were approved, for a total of 1,890 lots on 764 acres. It is not clear whether any master plan was a basis for the subdivision approvals. Though no master plan was required, there are various plans in the files, all of which are similar but have some substantial differences from each other. The plans are undated, but staff was told by David Lee Ingram, whose firm prepared the pians, that the working ''Master plan" nrenaared bly Yor ixl;l Y Y ) �ui`ij %- V♦ 11 ns & Associates was done in the very early 1970's. This plan was certainly available when sections 6B and 8A were approved in July, 1973. Along with the lake and golf course, it indicates several green areas throughout the development, including one at the eastern end of the lake where the current subdivision is contemplated. It also indicates a ski area of approximately 35 acres and large areas noted as "future development." Another plan, apparently produced earlier, indicates a future equestrian area, and does not indicate any use for the area at the eastern end of the lake. Still another plan, which is less formal and was apparently produced after 1973, indicates a marina and future development at the eastern end of the lake. - After November 1973, it appears to have been understood that the then -current zoning requirements would apply to new sections. In the June 1974 rezoning application that clarified that all 1936.4 acres would be zoned R-5, the applicant's Economic Impact Study stated: All of these lands will simply be a continuation of the present concept of Lake Holiday Estates, Inc. and will not materially change the ideas that have been put forth and accepted to this time. They will continue to comply with all of the zoning requirements designated by R S with regard to densities, open spaces, land uses, and physical configurations Also, a June 1974 letter from the County Administrator to the attorneys for The Summit advises that plats, plans, and other information related to future platted sections of The Summit be submitted as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. A careful review of the applicant's figures for numbers of lots and acreage in in open space, unplatted areas, etc. has shown that some corrections to those figures are necessary. A marked up copy of the applicant's figures is provided as Appendix A. To summarize the corrected figures, the total acreage of The Summit property is 1936.4 acres (just over 3 square miles). Not including the proposed subdivision, there are presently 2,667 lots platted on 1,044.1 acres, excluding 42.8 acres of open space "green areas" dispersed throughout the platted sections. This accounts for about 54% of the entire Summit property. The lake, golf course, beaches, and miscellaneous green areas account for about 27 % of the entire development (or just under 34% of the presently developed area). The unplatted areas shown as belonging to Independent Mortgage Trust, now in the name of IFS Corp., account for about 14 % of the entire property. The remaining 5% is in the dam area, commercial area, and miscellaneous unplatted areas. The deeds for the golf course are quite involved, but as best as staff can determine there are no deed covenants which restrict the use of the golf course or other "green areas" to open space. Therefore, if such areas are to be counted towards any open space requirement, it should be made clear that they would remain as open space. The unplatted areas belonging to IFS Corp. should not be counted as open space since they are not dedicated as open space, as the ordinance requires, OPTIONS FOR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS 1. Since a case can be made that this development was expected to provide large portions of open space from its very beginning (at least approximating the 35 % requirement that came into effect with the R-5 district), and the lot purchasers presumably expected as much, it could be argued that 35 % of the entire development should be dedicated as open space. That would translate to about 678 acres of open space when everything else was fully developed. If the lake, golf course, two beaches, and miscellaneous green areas are all counted towards the open space requirement, they would provide about 530 acres of open space, which leaves a shortage of approximately 148 acres. The, unplatted IFS property, along with the dam area and a few smaller areas account for about 362 acres, so it is possible that 148 acres could be provided out of those areas. The current standards for open space do not allow more than 50% of the required open space to be within lakes and ponds, wetlands, or steep slopes, but the Planning Commission may allow a larger amount of steep slopes to count towards the open space requirement when the developer can demonstrate a viable plan to make such areas useful. It cannot be determined from the application how much of the existing open space is in the lake, wetlands, or steep slopes, but it is entirely possible that such portions account for over 50% of the open space. To apply this option, a Master Plan for the entire development would need to be submitted, designating the areas to count towards the 35 % requirement. There would need to be dedication of the existing open spaces and of future open spaces. Such a plan may show that the area proposed for Section 1B would not need to provide any open space. There may need to be a waiver for the amount of existing open space within the environmental areas in excess of 50% 2. A different case could be made that, since 764 acres were platted prior to November 1973, when R-5 requirements came into effect, the open space requirement should only be imposed on the remaining 1172 acres that had not yet been platted. That would translate to about 410 acres of open space. Again, if the lake, golf course, beaches, etc. are counted towards the requirement, they would provide more than enough open space for the remainder of the development. One significant implication of this approach is that all of the remaining unplatted portions, and perhaps even some of the existing green areas that are not officially dedicated, could be fully developed without providing any more open space within the new parts. Again, assurances about the golf course, lake, etc. remaining as such would be needed and a determination would need to be made about whether the existing open space located within the environmental areas would all be counted toward the required total. 3. A third approach would be a compromise between the previous two approaches. The existing "green areas," along with the lake, beaches, etc., could be dedicated as open space the 35 % open space requirement could be applied to the unplatted areas. As noted above, the County was told in June 1974 that the lands within The Summit would comply with the R-5 zoning requirements with regard to open spaces, among other things. Since the unplatted IFS property, along with the dam area and a few smaller areas total about 362 acres, roughly 127 acres of this would need to remain as dedicated open space if the remainder was platted for development. This would result in about 21 acres less open space than the first option would. This could achieved either by requiring a master plan that indicates 35 % of the undeveloped area as open space or by requiring each individual future development to include 35 % open space. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the best overall land use and open space scheme would result from a Master Plan for the entire development, regardless of which level of open space is required. Staff suggests asking the applicant if he would be willing to coordinate with the owners of the remaining undeveloped land at The Summit to produce such a plan. In terms of the level of open space required, staff recommends adopting the third option described above as the policy towards any new development at The Summit. This would include securing assurances that the lake, golf course, beaches, and miscellaneous green areas that are not dedicated as open space would in fact remain as they are. It is further recommended that the requirement that no more than 50% of the open space be within environmental areas only be applied to future development, including the proposed subdivision. This would allow the status quo to be considered sufficient in terms of inclusion of steep slopes, etc. in open space for the areas platted to date. This seems reasonable in terms of current property owners' expectations about open space. If a master plan for the entire development can be provided, it is possible that the applicant's land may not be required to include open space. If an overall master plan cannot be provided, a master plan for the applicant's property, with 35 % open space would be required. SUMMARY The history of The Summit and the open space commitments there is very complex, making it difficult to apply standards for new development there that are both equitable and easy to understand. It is clear that a significant portion of The Summit was platted prior to the R-5 regulations becoming effective, but it also appears to have been understood from the very inception of the development that something close to what R-5 now requires would be provided there. The existing open space does not meet current requirements in terms of acreage -or in terms of dedication as open space and very well may not meet current requirements in terms of having no more than 50% of the open space within certain environmental areas. The question of whether the entire development is vested under the pre -1973 standards in terms of master plan requirements and open space requirements, while not answered conclusively, has been substantially answered. Staff believes there is a strong case that current master plan and open space requirements should apply at least to any new development, especially since such representations were made at the time of rezoning. The County needs to secure what is currently informally counted as open space. This would require specific designation and assurances about the existing open space, including the lake, golf course, beaches, and miscellaneous green areas. It would be preferrable to have a master plan for the entire development before any new subdivisions are approved, but if that is not provided then the current subdivision proposal would need to provide a master plan with 35 % open space. In either case, staff recommends that 35 % of the remaining unplatted area be planned as open space which meets current standards and that the existing open space, once secured, be considered sufficient for the existing platted areas. Attachment B summarizes in chart form the three options described for open space requirements. enclosure 3 LAKE HOLIDAY ESTATES DEVELOPMENT DATA LOT GROSS DEDICATED N0. NO.4ME'TPLATTED SECTION NOS. ACREAGE OPEN SPACE LOTS LOTS ACREAGE 1 1 - 150( X73 0 159' 2 0 98A Z 151 1A 1248 - 1259 .6, 0 12 0 2-)e 152 - 296 LLO- x 145 0 298 - 432 111.0 1 I.(o 135 0 3A ik' 433 - 559 �& I '0 1 -2 -TI 0 48.b 0.2 I 1210 4A 1 - 238 3a j .2-3 0 I 95.b 1 1238 I 4B 1 - 16 yY 11 3 I 0 16 I 0 5A 7-t 1 - 244 .992 7 i 0 i 244 0 5B 1205 - 1247 X144 0 43 0 5C 1 175 - 1204 .S- 9¢ I 0 i 30 0 6A* 1 - 253 I 19�97.1 I 0 I �25� 0 6134• 1 - 99 I_ X38.5 Xf.S I 99 I 0 7 1 133 - 1 174 �'-Y17 Z "--I.2 i 42 0 8A 1 - 352 28-6- aS 352 ,S'o 378 - 4-9-24q520715 Iq o N-5-tt6 0 3 53 - 3 Z5 9 986 - 1132 .69� (00. to �✓. �- I I 147 0 10 493 - 607 0 115 0 I 11 614 - 712 � ��.3 o � I 12 719 - 985 )-0-�103.0 X6.5 267 0 0 v13-ToTALS : I I,D�g I 4-2.6 I 2,t,1,7 ser , t, o 4-+.1 SF.GTt orts Y�PT � l:D 5Eroge 11/73 7(14.2 AGKES , (,J 90 Lois) page 1 of 2 WWTP P"Orr enclosure 3 LAKE 240 uvLr t,vuttJt -?-$- 21t J(� 1 AKMA COON � AS FAZr of LFSyivY TT>cy AKEA1 DAM AREA -34- .Z'2 Q .vl'u'ICKI. 1 HL -1-� BEACH 1 9.b t 1.9 BEACH 2 5b c)taP�ATTE Z%g. S M IS C . — GREEN AKEAS ►�.2 . �� " VNQLATT�D ,� 3S 3 TOTALS GROSS ACREAGE: 4 -9 -ft ig36.4 /OPEN SPACE: 84--9-- 530.5 PERCENT OPEN SPACE: 41-2e* 2-7-47. LOT TO AREA RA710:g x.377 Er�D cX � nage 2 of 2 Tne SummitE :,x: at Lake HoliciaV Open Space Requirements I Present Development Option 1 (35% Overall) 11 'J 10 Option 2 Option 3 (35% Since '1973) (Present Amt. + 35% of Future) Platted Acreage Open Space Unplatted/Fut. Dev. STATUS OF ROUTE 642 REALIGNMENT PROJECT The following is a summary of the events which have occurred to date involving the Route 642 Realignment Project. A plan is attached which shows the alignment in relation to the various parcels which would be affected. BACKGROUND May 10, 1989 The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution endorsing the Route 642 project as the highest priority in VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program. June S, 1990 A public meeting was held at Aylor School to discuss possible routes for the proposed realignment. July 18, 1990 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended the "southern route" be chosen for 642. April 8, 1992 The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing and endorsed the proposed route for the realignment of Route 642. Following the Boards approval of the route recommended by the Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission, which came about as a result of numerous meetings both with the general public and private meetings with affected individuals, G. W. Clifford and Associates completed initial design work for the realignment. Plans were submitted to VDOT for their review and comment. VDOT's comments were received by Clifford and Associates and were being addressed. April 2, 1993 A meeting was held at the offices of G. W. Clifford and Associates between Clifford's designers, County planning staff and VDOT representatives. It was at this meeting we learned that if the County wished to have VDOT participate in the right-of-way acquisition for the realignment, then the project would have to meet the states new Storm Water Management Regulations. This required some redesign of the road plans which resulted in an additional delay. June 9, 1993 The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution requesting that VDOT, in coordination with County staff, begin acquiring the necessary right-of-way. The resolution also authorized the expenditure of secondary road construction funds to supplement revenue sharing funds if needed. -2 - Throughout the process of selecting a route for the 542 relocation, the planning staff has been in contact with those landowners from whom land would be needed. A number of the owners of large tracts of land located in the vicinity of the realignment agreed to give the needed acreage. These same landowners contributed a large portion of the County's match for this revenue sharing project, as they stand to benefit from the eventual realignment. Other landowners who expressed no desire to develop their land did not wish to give the acreage needed. The County had stated early on that it did intend to condemn property, therefore, arrangements would need to be made to purchase the right-of-way from these individuals. RECENT EVENTS We have negotiated the terms of the land transactions and have verbal agreements with two of the three landowners that did not agree to give us the needed right-of-way. Contracts for these transfers are being drawn up. We have yet to reach such an agreement with the third landowner. G. W. Clifford has revised the design drawings for the realignment to meet the Stormwater Management Requirements. The plans were forwarded to VDOT and we are awaiting their comments. October 13, 1993 The Board of Supervisors approved the transfer of the County's share of the revenue sharing funds needed for the project to VDOT.