Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 07-07-93 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia JULY 7, 1993 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Meeting Minutes of May 19 and June 16, 1993 ................... A 2) Monthly and Bimonthly Reports ............................. B 3) Committee Reports .................................... C 4) Citizen Comments ..................................... D 5) Subdivision application #003-93 of Prince Frederick Office Park for one lot plus Prince Frederick Drive. This property is located south of the intersection of Route 50 (Millwood Pike) and Prince Frederick Drive, in the Shawnee District. (Mr. Miller) ......................................... E 6) Master Development Plan #005-93 of Greenwood Road Realty Partnership for 88 single-family detached traditional residential lots. This property is located on the east side of Route 656 (Greenwood Road) in the Stonewall District. (Applicant, Mr. Wyatt) ............. F 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 7) Conditional Use Permit #002-93 of Ryland Homes for an off premise business sign. This sign will be on property located on the west side of Route 647 (Aylor Road), at the intersection of Westmoreland Drive, in the Opequon District. (Mr. Miller) ........................................ G 8) Conditional Use Permit #006-93 of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows for a private fraternity lodge. This property is located on the southwest side of Route 620 (Miller Road) in the Back Creek District. (Mr. Miller) ......................................... H 9) Conditional Use Permit #008-93 of Thomas A. Jannuzzi for a cottage occupation to operate an adult care facility. This property is located in the Cedar Grove area, off of Route 715 (Little Mountain Church Road), in the Gainesboro District. (Mr. Miller) ......................................... I 10) Rezoning Application #001-93 of Dodson Brothers Extermination Co., Inc.,, to rezone 2.0581 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B-2 (Business, General). This property is located north and adjacent to Shawnee Drive, east of the Route 11 (Valley Pike)/Route 652 (Shawnee Drive) intersection, in the Shawnee District. (Mr. Tierney) ........................................ J 11) An amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article XX, Definitions. The proposed amendments pertain to definitions for inoperable vehicles and mobile homes. (Mr. Wyatt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K MISCELLANEOUS 12) Final draft of the Planning Commission bylaws. (Mr. Watkins) ........................................ L 13) Discussion regarding the 1993-1994 Secondary Road Construction Budget. (Mr. Wyatt) ........................................ M 14) Discussion regarding the Virginia Growth Strategies Act. (Mr. Watkins) ........................................ N 15) 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 May 19, 1993. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Robert Morris, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison. AB ENT: Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District Planning Staff Present were: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner Il; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1993 Mrs. Copenhaver noted a correction to Page 2 of the minutes, under Sanitation Authority Report. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the mobile home park should be "Pioneer Trailer Park," not "Forest Lakes" mobile home park. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the minutes of April 7, 1993 were unanimously approved as amended. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 5/10/93 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPS continued with their corridor studies. Mr. Hood from the Winchester Western Railroad was present to discuss rail services. She said that the CPPS is also planning for the upcoming public meetings on corridors. S0hen„CilFrederick County Joint Planning Committee - 5/17/93 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the SC/FC Joint Planning Committee used many of the same ideas and information used by the CPPS, but concentrated on the Stephens City North Corridor along Route 11 and from the railroad out to Route 11. They also began planning for the public meetings to be possibly held in July. Mrs. Copenhaver said that they are also continuing their discussions on adjusting some of the boundary lines between Stephens City and the County. Sanitation Authority - 5/19/93 Mtg Mrs. Copenhaver said that the Sanitation Authority has elected Ned Clelland as its new Chairman., Chris Molden as Vice Chairman, and Bill Edmundson as Secretary/Treasurer. The following requests have been received for water: Westview Subdivision (13 people) - $32,400 ($2,500 per connection) Bufflick Heights (33 people) - 58,000 ($1,760 per connection) Miller Heights (22 people) - 72,000 ($3,000 per connection) Boundary Lane (under 10 people) - 45,500 (water) --need water & sewer 46,750 (sewer) Rt. 636 (from 277 to Pioneer MHP) - 72,000 ($6,000 per connection) (12-13 people) Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 5113J93_ Mtgs Mr. Thomas said that the DRRS informally discussed adding landscaping requirements to the environmental features section of the ordinance (which involves woods, 3 drainageways, floodplains, sink holes, etc.). Mr. Thomas said that the committee discussed requiring a drawing to be included with the master plan that would provide a detailed inventory of environmental features and disturbance to environmental features. Economic Development Commission Mr. Romine reported that attention is being focused lately on local industry and the importance of new industry to our area. Historic Resources Advisory Board Mr. Shenk reported that HRAB recommended their selection for the contest winner for the Historic Site Plaque Design. The HRAB also discussed utilization of the 40 -minute historic site video and slide presentation. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS Master Development Plan #003-93 for Hillsdale Estates for 247 townhouses. This property is located south of Route 659, on the west side of Route 716, 1/2 mile east of the City of Winchester, and is identified as Parcel ID #54-2-2 in the Shawnee District. Action - Approved Mr. Chuck Maddox with G. W. Clifford & Associates, came forward to present the master development plan for Hillsdale Estates. Mr. Maddox said that since the land adjacent to this property has recently been under review, it was felt that in order to do regional planning, it was important to bring this proposal before the Commission at this time. Chairman Golladay said that in the past, the Commission has been concerned with tying subdivisions together in order to minimize traffic congestion on primary roads. Chairman Golladay asked if the proposed street off Route 716, going east into Brookland Heights, was going to be constructed with this development. Mr. Maddox felt the road would be built at some point in the future. He said that discussions have taken place between the property owners to construct the road connection, but nothing has been resolved at this point. Mr. Maddox said that there is an existing 50' right-of- way connecting the two parcels, but it cannot be dedicated until that property develops. 4 The Commissioners felt that a connection from this development through to Brookland Heights would be in the County's best interest; however, they felt that they could not require the applicant to construct the road at this point in time because the right-of-way was owned by a number of individuals, not all of which were participating in this project. After further discussion with the applicant, the Commission's main concern was whether the project could be handled from a traffic standpoint, especially on Rt. 659 and its intersection with Rt. 7. It was pointed out that if VDOT had no objections to the overall plan, it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to deny approval based on traffic concerns. One option discussed was to move Route 659 up on the road improvement plan. Other concerns were that the density and open space of the project fell just under the maximum permitted by the ordinance and the many townhouse units that were situated along the western and southern edges of Phase III, in areas designated as steep slopes. County Engineer, Ed Strawsnyder, stated in his comments that if the lots on steep slopes could not be relocated, detailed site plans would be required to delineate the finished grades and design floor elevations. Regarding density, Chairman Golladay suggested that the Commission reexamine the density requirements in the RP section of the ordinance. He said that if the Commission felt that 250 townhouses at a density of 7.7 units/acre, which is right under the limit, was too high, then the ordinance needed to be changed. Another area of concern was the off -set entrances to Phases I and II. Because the entrance to the eastern units was considered by the applicant to be a "driveway" and not a state - maintained road, the Commission could not require that the entrances line up. The Commissioners asked about the vicinity of structures in relation to the Abrams Creek 100 -year flood area. Mr. Maddox assured the Commission that they were well above the 100 -year flood plain. The staff felt that it might be helpful to have a shared stormwater management facility between this parcel and the Wilkins property just to the north. No one else was present to speak in favor or in opposition to this master plan. Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Master Development Plan #{003-93 of Hillsdale Estates for 247 townhouses with the condition that all staff, review agency, and Planning Commission comments be adequately addressed and, in addition, the applicant shall submit slope stability analyses for all lots that contain steep slope areas. (Mr. Carper was absent) 5 DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO O THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, ARTICLE XX, DEFINITIONS Mr. Wyatt said that the Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, and Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance during their regular meeting of April 7, 1993. He said that the Planning Commission recommended approval of all but two of the proposed amendments: the definitions for mobile homes and inoperable vehicles. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS reviewed those two definitions again and have recommended that the proposed definition for mobile home remain as proposed by the staff, because it closely parallels the state code, and that the definition for inoperable vehicle be revised to include certain language found in the Code of Virginia. He said that the staff also deleted a portion of the last sentence which stated, "...when connected to the required utilities and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical system." Staff requested that the Commission allow these definitions to be advertised for the next available public hearing. Mr. Jay Cook, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, was present and felt he may have problems in court on the mobile home definition with the deletion mentioned concerning hooking up utilities. The Commission recommended that the mobile home definition include the wording "...when connected to the required utilities" and then delete the remainder of the sentence. The Commission, staff, and Assistant Commonwealth Attorney generally agreed with the amended definitions and Chairman Golladay instructed the staff to proceed with advertising for public hearing. INFORMAL DISCIISSION WITH G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE HAMPTON !CHASE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Tierney said that G. W. Clifford & Associates have requested an informal discussion concerning a proposed revision to the Hampton Chase MDP. He said that the revision consists of going from single family, zero lot line and townhouse units to all single family zero lot line. Mr. Charles W. Maddox of G. W. Clifford & Associates said that he was representing Dave Holliday and Hampton Chase. Mr. Maddox said that this developed previously totalled 114 units (approximately 5 1/2 to 6 units per acre) and they are proposing a revision to 65 single family units (approximately 3 units per acre). Mr. Maddox said that the owner has requested this change because of a recent market analysis and what he feels is a better A option for this area. Mr. Maddox reviewed the revisions to the master plan with the Commission. The Commission had no problems with the revisions and gave the applicant the okay to proceed. PREAPPLICATION DISCUSSION WITH G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES REGARDING A PROPOSED REZONING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SHAWNEE DRIVE FOR DODSON PEST CONTROL Mr. Tierney said that G. W. Clifford & Associates have requested time on the agenda to discuss a proposed rezoning of a two -acre parcel for Dodson Pest Control. He said that this type of use is allowed in the B2, B3, M1, and M2 Zoning Districts. Mr. Maddox said that Dodson Pest Control is currently renting space within the City of Winchester and they would like to move to an approximate two -acre parcel, zoned RP, in the County located on the north side of Shawnee Drive. Mr. Maddox said that they are asking for B2 (Business General) Zoning on the property. He said that they will be using approximately half of the property for their facility. The existing house will be maintained as an office and another building will be constructed for storage and parking of vehicles. Chairman Golladay suggested that Mr. Maddox meet with the adjoining property owners regarding the rezoning. Chairman Golladay said that in the past, rezonings in this area have been turned down because the residents there are so adamant about not wanting anymore business or industrial zoning. No action was taken by the Commission at this time. INFORMAL DISCUSSION LIFF RD & ASSOCIATES -REGARDING A PROPOSED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A -P-0RUON OF THE STONEWALL INDUSTRIAL PARK,.. Mr. Charles Maddox of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. came forward to informally present a proposed master development plan for an additional 30 -acre portion of the Stonewall Industrial Park. Mr. Maddox pointed out the boundary lines for the new section, ; which was entirely on the west side of Welltown Pike. Mrs. Sherwood spoke of drainage complaints several years ago in this area. Mr. Maddox said that there has been drainage problems existing in this area for some time, even with the field vacant. Mr. Maddox said that they are proposing a major regional stormwater management pond to handle the entire area. Mr. Maddox said that there is an interested party looking at a parcel of land here for a major facility. No action was taken by the Commission at this time. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DETENTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN FREDERICK COUNTY AND VDOT Mr. Miller presented a proposed comprehensive stormwater detention agreement between Frederick County and VDOT which was taken directly from the VDOT Guide f r Additions. Abandonments and Discontinuances, dated February 1, 1993. Mr. Miller said that the agreement will preclude the county from having to consummate and record an agreement with VDOT every time a stormwater detention/ retention facility is constructed and dedicated to the county. He said that this will not preclude the County from having to initiate an agreement with the parry or parties that will need to maintain the facility, but will streamline the process since the County is basically the "middleman" for this action. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Comprehensive Stormwater Detention Agreement between Frederick County and VDOT as presented by the staff. ADJOURNMENT p.m. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:10 Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on June 16, 1993. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Robert Morris, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison. ABSENT: Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - APRIL 21, 1993 Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of April 21, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented. MINUTES - MAY 5, 1993 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Morris, the minutes of May 5, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Mr. Wilson inquired about the Twin Lakes rezoning, which has been pending 2 since April 4, 1990. Mr. Watkins replied that he had an official request by the applicants (current property owners) that the rezoning be continued. Mr. Wilson asked that the applicants be contacted to find out what their intentions are, since this has been pending for such a long time. Mt. View Church of Christ Mr. Wyatt said that the staff has received a site plan from the Mt. View Church of Christ for a mobile classroom unit to be placed next to their church on Route 11 South. Mr. Wyatt said that the applicant has stated that this will be a temporary unit for summer classes, but they will not specify a date when the mobile unit would be removed. Chairman Golladay gave the staff permission to proceed with administrative approval, but noted that the mobile unit should be treated as a permanent structure. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensiyg Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CP&PS) - 6/14/93 Mtg- Mr. Tierney reported that the CP&PS is working on a meeting format for the Corridor Studies public meetings in July. He said that Routes 50 and 7 will be presented on July 12 at Senseny Road Elementary School at 7:30 p.m. and Route I1 will be presented on July 26 at 7:30 p.m. (location not yet finalized). Economic Development Commission (EDC) Mr. Romine reported that a meeting will take place on June 22 with a Richmond group to discuss a small business center development in this area. Historic Resources A HRAB - 1 Mg. Mr. Lilley reported that the HRAB is progressing on the plaque design project. They are also informing civic groups and county schools of the availability of the rural landmarks survey video as an educational effort. Mr. Lilley said that the HRAB is also planning an informational meeting this fall for property owners eligible to be included in the state and national registers. t1 Transportation Committee - 6/7/93 Mtg_ Mr. Wyatt reported that the Transportation Committee: endorsed a grant application for the Sheriff's Department for funding to provide additional neighborhood patrol and additional DUI check points; endorsed an ISTEA enhancement proposal (to be presented later in the meeting); and endorsed VDOT's secondary construction budget. SUBDIVISIONS Subdivision Application #002-93 of the Villa= at t Shgrando for 51 single-family lots_ This property is identified as PIN #86 -A -102A and is located north of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) in the Opequon District. Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that the subdivision plan did not conform to the approved master development plan because the street layout was changed and the plan did not reflect the four foot walkway/trail/bike path reflected in the master plan. Mr. Miller said that the engineer for the developer has advised that they intend to build the pathway as previously agreed, however, this should be reflected on the plan. He said that the redesigned street layout appears to be preferable to the previous design because it allows better traffic flow, enhances safety, and has reduced density by two lots, from 53 to 51. Mr. Ron Mislowsky, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, came forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Mislowsky said that they have revised the master plan and subdivision plats to reflect comments by the planning staff and reviewing agencies. Mr.. Mislowsky said that the four foot sidewalk will run along the south side of Ivory Drive, down the westernmost property line of Jefferson Village, and along the northern property line of Georgetown Court. In response to the Commission's questions on compliance with VDOT's requirements, Mr. Mislowsky said that VDOT's major concern was that they were using the roadway embankment of Ivory Drive as a part of the detention structure. Mr. Mislowsky said that they shifted the pond off of VDOT's right-of-way to satisfy this concern. The Commissioners felt that since the redesign of the road layout was an overall improvement and resulted in reducing the density of development, they would consider the subdivision application without requiring the applicant to submit a revised master plan through the approval process. The Commission requested that the applicant submit a revised master plan reflecting the changed street layout to the staff for filing. Upon motion made by made by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Romine, 4 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the Village at Slherando Subdivision Application #002-93 for 51 single-family lots with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed. 2. The subdivision plan needs to be revised to reflect the walkway as required by the master plan. 3. The master plan must be revised to reflect the redesigned street layout and be provided to staff for filing. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS Master Development Plan #007-93 of Hampton Chase for 65 units including 36 zero lot line units. This property is identified as PIN #54-A-94 and is located northeast of Battle Avenue and Van Fossen Street in the Stonewall District. Action - Approved Mr. Tierney said that this is a request to revise the approved master development plan for Hampton Chase. He said that the current version of the MDP contains 85 townhouse units and 29 single-family zero lot line units for a total of 114 units. The proposed revision would replace the 85 townhouse units with 36 zero lot line units with a resulting total of 65 units. Mr. Tierney said that a 50' zoning district buffer will be required along the entire northern edge of the property. This buffer will encroach on the back portion of eight of the lots located on or near the proposed cul-de-sac. The major concern of the Commission was that the reconfiguration of lots eliminated a water line connection to the adjacent Salvation Army project. The Commission did not want to create a situation where a parcel would be landlocked from utilities. Mr. Dwayne Brown, land surveyor with G.W. Clifford Associates, was the project engineer for the Hampton Chase project. Mr. Brown said that the developer is willing to provide water access to the Salvation Army site. The Commission was in favor of the revision since it resulted in a significant reduction in site density and the applicant was willing to provide water access to the Salvation Army site. 5 Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #007-93 of Hampton Chase for 65 units, including 36 zero lot line units, with the condition that an easement for a water line be provided by the developer to the Salvation Army site. Master Development Plan #004-93 of Henkel -Ham m Inc for an industrial park. This property is identified as PIN #63-A-110 and is located south of Shawnee Drive in the Back Creek District. Action - Approved Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., of G.W. Clifford & Associates, presented the Henkel -Harris master plan to the Commission. Mr. Maddox reviewed the stormwater management and transportation planning for the site. He said that a traffic generation plan had been submitted to VDOT for industrial access funds to widen Shawnee Drive from Route 11 to the site. Mr. Maddox said that if the Mobile Oil Corporation purchases the site they are presently leasing, they also have the option of purchasing the adjoining site. If they purchase the adjoining site, they will probably want to eliminate the existing entrance road and use it for their own on-site purposes. Mr. Maddox said that he would then come back before the Commission with an engineered plan for a new entrance for the park, located to the east. The Commissioners felt that the plan took into consideration the future growth of the area and had no problems with it. Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #004-93 of Henkel -Harris Company, Inc. for an industrial park with all comments of the staff, the reviewing agencies, and the City of Winchester being adequately addressed. Master Development Plan #006-93 of Stonewall Industrial Park for 141 acres park zoned M1 (Light Industrial). This property is identified as PIN #43-19-1 and 43-A-63 and is located north of and adjacent to McGhee Road in the Gainesboro District. Action - Approved C. Mr. Wyatt stated that staff concerns involve the proposed extension of Tyson Drive, which appears to traverse the full buffer area, and project phasing. Mr. Wyatt said that he spoke with some of the adjoining property owners who are having water problems and they are concerned about stormwater management. Mr. Thomas Price, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the project engineering firm, and Mr. Thomas Gilpin, with Lenoir City Company of Virginia, the owner, came forward to represent this plan. Mr. Price said that they feel they have enough room to make the Tyson Drive extension to Welltown Road (Rt. 661) without intruding into the buffer area. They are also planning to extend water and sewer lines, and rail spurs. Mr. Price stated that the site is split into two separate drainage areas and they are providing a regional stormwater management system consisting of two separate detention ponds. He said that a 100' full screen buffer will provide separation and landscaping along all existing residential properties. Chairman Golladay called for anyone wishing to speak regarding this master plan and the following people came forward: Mr. James Parsons, resident on Route 661, was very concerned about the water runoff situation. Mr. Parsons said that he almost always has water in his back yard. Mr. Charles Maddox, engineer with G. W. Clifford & Associates, said that the detention pond they are proposing will be a major structure that will be designed to hydrologically protect both internal and external areas. He said that the fact that there are existing water problems in this area will make them sensitive to the issue at the site plan stage. However, without the benefit of in-depth calculations, there is no way they can determine what actually can be done short of actually designing the facility and, at the master plan stage, this would be premature. Mr. Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., County Engineer, said that the regional concept is a good one in that it will accommodate structures that have had less than adequate designs or have failed due to lack of maintenance. Mr. Strawsnyder said that a regional facility should improve the drainage that is now reaching the road area. Mr. Gladstone "Stoney" Crosen, resident of Jessica Acres, said that he shared Mr. Parson's concern regarding the stormwater runoff. Mr. Crosen's main concern was the possibility of industrial runoff polluting his well. His other concerns regarded noise from 24- hour truck traffic and some method to prevent pedestrian traffic exchange between the residential and industrial areas, such as a fence. The Commission next discussed the entrances to the site with the applicant. There was concern that three entrances in less than one mile was excessive and that the noise potential for those residents across the Tyson Drive entrance on Route 661 was very high. It was suggested that the Tyson Drive extension be re-routed through the 30 -acre tract instead of extending it out to the houses on Route 661. 7 Mr. Gilpin said that if the Tyson Drive extension was brought through the 30 -acre site, it would bisect a potential building site. Mr. Gilpin said they had considered a cul-de-sac at the end of the Tyson Drive extension, but then decided against that because in the past, the Commission has expressed a desire for connecting roads and additional entrances in industrial parks. Mr. Gilpin said that they could address truck traffic exiting the park by that entrance, if the Commission desired. The consensus of the Commission was that the regional stormwater facilities as proposed by the applicant was the best approach to handle site run-off and the water problems experienced by the adjoining residential property owners. Mr. Romine moved for approval of the master plan and this motion was seconded by Mr. DeHaven as follows: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #006-93 of Stonewall Industrial Park for the remaining portion of the park zoned MI (Light Industrial) provided the applicant addresses all review agency comments, all staff comments, and all concerns and comments of the Planning Commission. OTHER DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED REZONING FOR UNIMIN CORPORATION, LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF GORE Mr. Kris Tierney said that the UNIMIN Corporation has requested time with the Commission to discuss a proposed rezoning of 211 acres of RA land near their existing mining operation at Gore. He said that the intent would be to expand their sand mining and related support operations onto this land. Mr. Tierney said that information submitted indicates that there is no plan for increased production associated with the rezoning. However, the area proposed for rezoning runs along the eastern edge of Route 704 for roughly a mile and the potential for significant visual impacts from the mining operation exists. Mr. Doug Swift, an attorney with Swift & Buchbauer, was the local counsel for the UNIMIN Corporation. Mr. Swift introduced Mrs. Susan Armentrout, the Senior Environmental Specialist for the UNIMIN Corporation. Mrs. Armentrout began by stating that visual impacts along Route 704 will be minimal. She said that mining activities will not occur closer than 1,000' from Route 704. A vegetative buffer, consisting of hardwoods and evergreens, currently acts as a visual screen for road traffic and residences. She said that the quarry itself is internally located and therefore, mining activities should not be visible. The Commission had questions about stormwater management. Mrs. Armentrout W said that their plan is to control stormwater runoff by keeping it internal to the quarry floor. She said that portions of some of the outslopes will drain towards a pond they plan to construct adjacent to Back Creek. She said that they are in the process of obtaining approval for the pond from the DMME (Dept. of Mines, Minerals & Energy) and the DEQ (Dept. of Environmental Quality) . Mr. Charles Baldwin, plant manager for UNIMIM, said that they remove approximately 2500 tons of crude ore daily. Mrs. Armentrout stated that both the Cove Ridge Quarry and the South Quarry are in operation. She said that they plan to expand the Cove Ridge Quarry, however, there is no planned increase in total production from the plant. The Commission next spoke with the applicant about reclamation phasing. The Commissioners felt comfortable with the proposed rezoning as long as the applicant met all the requirements of the DMME and the DEQ. No action was needed by the Commission at this time. DISCUSSION RE: REQUEST TO WAIVE THE STATE ROAD REQUIREMENT IN A RURAL SUBDIVISION BY MR. THOMAS BRUBAKER Mr. Wilson abstained from discussion and vote of this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Tierney said that Mr. Thomas Brubaker is requesting a waiver of Section 144- 31-B-(2) which requires roads within major rural subdivisions to be built to VDOT's Tertiary Street Standards. Mr. Tierney said that this section of the ordinance also contains a provision for the Planning Commission to grant a waiver of the tertiary street requirement in cases where the development of a subdivision began prior to the amended regulations. He said that it allows for new roads within an existing subdivision to be built to the same standards as roads already in existence. Mr. Thomas Brubaker, the owner of the property, said that he subdivided five lots fronting on Cedar Creek Grade in 1989 and those lots now have houses on them. He said that two of those five lots use a 30' easement for access. Mr. Brubaker stated that it was his intention in 1989 to divide the rear 20 acres into four lots and provide them access via the existing 30' right-of-way. He said that this would have been permitted at that time; however, the revisions to the county's rural subdivision regulations, adopted in 1991, now require that the rear lots be served by a tertiary street. The Commissioners asked if there would be maneuvering capability for emergency 01 vehicles at the end of the accessway. Mr. Brubaker said that provision would be made for emergency vehicles, although it may not be a full scale cul-de-sac. He said that he has improved the accessway with stone and his plans are to tar and chip the road, at the very least. Chairman Golladay asked if there will be notification to potential buyers of the properties that this is not a state maintained road and never will be. The staff replied that this statement will be required on the plat. Given that Mr. Brubaker intended to build the road in compliance with existing roads and that the waiver would result in only one additional lot utilizing the 30' right-of-way, most of the Commissioners were not opposed to granting the waiver. Upon motion made by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve a waiver of the tertiary street requirement for the rural subdivision owned by Mr. Brubaker provided that a turn -around access at the end of the 30' right-of-way is provided. YES (TO APPROVEZ Golladay, Marker, Shenk, DeHaven, Light, Romine, Morris Nai Thomas ABSTAIN: Wilson DISCUSSION RE: ROUTE 277 (FAIRFAX PIKE) CORRIDOR ISTEA TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL Mr. Evan Wyatt presented a proposal for ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Funds that involved the creation of a network bicycle/pedestrian facility near the Fairfax Pike (Route 277) Corridor that will provide access for some of the major residential subdivisions to public facilities (parks and high school) . He said that this proposal qualifies as one of the ten project categories specified in the Transportation Enhancement Program. Mr. Wyatt said that the Joint Winchester/Frederick County Transportation Committee and the Frederick County Transportation Committee have both endorsed the proposal. Mr. Wyatt discussed the phasing of the plan with the Commission. The Commission requested that the staff meet with the Parks and Recreation Department to evaluate utilizing an overhead walkway instead of a tunnel at the crossing of Route 277. it was pointed out that tunnels can have safety and maintenance problems and most larger cities are now doing away with them in lieu of overhead walkways. (Mrs. Copenhaver arrived at this point of the meeting.) 10 Upon motion made by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby endorse the proposal for ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Funds for the creation of a bicycle/pedestrian facility with the contention that a cost comparison be made on the overhead crossing versus the tunnel at Route 277. (MRS. COPENHAVER ABSTAINED) SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman Golladay appointed Mr. Robert Morris, Shawnee District, to the DR&RS (Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee). He also appointed citizen members to the DR&RS and CP&PS (Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee) as follows: DR&RS Norma Jean Shaw (Opequon District) John R. Krueger (Shawnee District) CP&PS Robert L. Oliver (Opequon District) George B. Hughes (Gainesboro District) Jay S. Banks (Stonewall District) David W. Ganse (Back Creek District) 11 ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report DATE: June 24, 1993 (1) Rezonings Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Twin Lakes Dodson Bros. 4/04/90 Shaw RA to B2/RP 6/10/93 Shaw RP 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 Ryland Homes 01/14/93 Opeq Off Premise Sign Independent Order of Odd Fellows 06/01/93 BkCK Lodge Building Thomas Jannuzzi 6/10/93 Gain Cottage Occup.- Adult Care (5) Conditional Use Permits Approved: dates are apvroval dates None (6) Site Plans Pending: dates are submittal dates Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. 9/12/89 Opeq Grace Brethren Church 6/08/90 Shaw Flex Tech 10/25/90 Ston Hampton Chase 12/18/90 Ston Lake Centre 05/15/91 Shaw Red Star Express Lines 05/24/91 Ston Trmt.facil Church Lgt. Industrial S.F. & T.H. Townhouses Whse. Addition 2 Freeton 04/27/92 Opeq Townhouses Salvation Army 12/03/92 Ston Ofc/Housing Triad Eng. Inc. 05/24/93 Shaw Offices Delco Development 06/02/93 Shaw Food Store Army Corps. of Eng. 06/15/93 Shaw Ofc. Bldg. Snappy Lube 06/23/93 BkCk Addition Shockey Industries 06/23/93 Ston Garage Addition Shockey Realty 06/23/93 Ston Loading Dock Addition (7) Site Plans Approved: (dates_ are approval dates) None (8) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Village at Sherando 05/17/93 Opeq Prince Fred. Ofc Park 06/14/93 Shaw (9) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C 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 Henry Business Park 02/03/93 Stonewall (10) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Hillsdale Estates 04/16/93 Shawnee Henkel Harris Co. 05/13/93 Greenwood Road Realty Partn. 05/20/93 Shawnee Stonewall Indus. Park 05/24/93 Stonewall Hampton Chase (revised) 05/24/93 Stonewall (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 3 (12) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin approval dates) Prince Frederick Business Park 06/08/93 Shawnee Franklin Mobile Hm. Pk. 06/22/93 Shawnee (13) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending•(submit dates) None (14) BZA Applications Approved• (approval dates) Paramount Termite Control 05/17/93 Ston Reduction of Buffers (15)_BZA Applications Denied• None (16) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER None "U"'I'll ,Y REPORT 7.c�n.i ny TOTAL PERMITS RP- o C7 MAY aw H Vl comparison of 1993 V W OZ W W to O :[ncl.ividu.1.1. folal — — n E 0 U a ii tm0 H Monthly Totals MAY 1992 W R. '- W U 1 En rQ Wp ZO pt Total o ° U 5/91 pp H V; 5 90 5 89 5 88 ; 5/87 O� Es. E' O pp H D+ z U o H [moi U 0 • -4 y p V 166 220 161 135 PROVED FOR ZONING 31 37 26 27 45 166 35 21 22 26 39 143 172 1. Multi -family 2. Single-family p 4 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 0 3 11 0 28 9 0 dwellings 3. hiob.i.le domes 8 14 4 4 6 36 11 5 3 5 4 28 42 51 79 52 33 14 4 10 12 1 17 8 1 14 2 4 0 1 0 7 2 2 2 2 2'1 - 1 0 2 10 10 7 3 -`New units - Replacements 0 4 p 1 0 2 p 5 4. Industrial 11 9 1 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 2 2 0' 5. Commercial 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 '1 T 18 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Miscellaneous nr.•niurmc ..- -' 21 -- ... . 15 22 22 31 111 22 14 17 18 30 101 106 88 81 77 76 ''200 150 100 50 0 COUNTY TOTAL 17V7 lyy11 1991 1992 1993 RhoIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL MUNTULY REPORT ..,.,r��, 1s�„ %j1 nucumu.Larlve Monthly ToLAls 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 zoning January - May 1993 Total January - May 1992 'Dotal 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 a0 a WW p a H H H H U W 'Z H t,0 N EH EE -4. H H U) EL U W z W 7 z Ot E H 9 E P E ch vHi mFCEna o o U f:4 0 w cn av cn o U U ro U0 U U U TOTAL PERMI'T'S AP- PROVED FOR ZONING 102 131 102 229 144 708 120 95 96 114 138 563 609 788 840 757 733 I. Multi -family p 12 0 144 27 183 0 8 0 0 25 33 25 126 98 69 "88 2. Single-family _ dwellings 32 56 27 21 34 170 42 20 21 53 29 165 153 223 300 276 268 3. Mobile homes - New Units 7 1 10 1 3 8 29 5 12 3 2 6 28 37 54 55 49 53 - Replacements 6 6 4 1 0 2 1 3 5 13 16 2 3 5 3 0 3 13 23 20 25 28 30- 7 0 2 3 15 14 34 30 21 23 4. Industrial 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 13 10 7 0 0 5. Commercial 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 17 53 19 57 26 " 6. Miscellaneous 63 521 74 60 75 324 73 54 72 58 78 335 364 322 361 306 298 rtstcMt7'S - Uounty Total 1000 750 500 250 0 .ommmmmuft - COUNTY TOTAL - RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #35 1. GIS Frederick County Shenandoah Valley GIS users discussed Frederick County's 2. ISTEA hosted the June meeting of the group. Bob Watkins and Mark Lemasters GIS plans and progress with the group. On June 14, created location maps for the proposed Transportation Enhancement Program. This proposal is for a networked bicycle/pedestrian path for the Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), Aylor Road (Rt. 647), Macedonia Church Road (Rt. 642), Double Church Road (Rt. 641) area. 3. Com rehensive Plans and Pro ams Committee CP&PS Corridor Studies The CP&PS has set public meeting dates to discuss the development of area plans for Routes 50 East, 7 East, and 11 between Stephens City and Kernstown. The first meeting will be held on July 12 at 7:30 p.m. and will focus on the Routes 7 and 50 Corridors. The second meeting will be July 22 at 7.30 p.m. and will focus on the Route 11 Corridor. The tentative location for the July 12 meeting will be the Senseny Road Elementary School. Board members will be notified when the location is finalized and are welcome to attend. Kris Tierney will be conducting the meetings. He and other members of the staff continue to gather relevant information on the corridors and produce maps and other display items. Kris also met with Stan Hough of the Winchester Star's Frederick County Edition to discuss the corridor studies of Routes 50, 7, and 11. Stan has agreed to put an article in the Edition to publicize the upcoming meetings. 4. Stephens Qity4Trederick CoUnty Joint Planning Grouip The SC/FC Joint Planning Group will be involved with the Route 11 Corridor public meeting. 5. Historic Resources Bob Watkins discussed historic preservation planning in Frederick County with the Shenandoah Historical Society. 6. Plan Reviews and Site Inspections Bob Watkins, Evan Wyatt, and EDC's June Wilmot met with Tom Gilpin and Chuck Maddox to discuss masterplanning for additional areas in the Stonewall Industrial Park. On June 11, Kris Tierney met with an individual interested in rezoning a small tract of land at the northeast corner of the intersection of Routes 50 and 644 from RA to B2. The individual may be going to the Planning Commission for an informal discussion of the proposal in July. Evan Wyatt conducted the following: On June 2, met with Tom Gilpin & G.W. Clifford & Associates to discuss requirements regarding master planning the remaining Mi (Light Industrial) portion of Stonewall Industrial Park; met with Ed Strawsnyder on June 4 to discuss the regional storm water management requirements; and on June 10, met with adjoining homeowners to discuss the proposed master development plan. Met with representatives of Mobile Chemical Company on June 2, to discuss site plan requirements for an expansion at their site located on Shawnee Drive (Rt. 652) in the Back Creek District. Met with G.W. Clifford & Associates on June 4 to discuss final master development plan requirements for Franklin Mobile Home Park. Met with Bruce Edens and Ben Butler on June 7 to discuss master development plans for Greenwood Realty Partnership. This property is located on Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Met with Terry Stone on June 8 to conduct a preliminary review for an addition to the Shockey Company site located on Martinsburg Pike ( Rt . 11N) , and the VDO site located on Brooke Road in Fort Collier Industrial Park. On June 10, conducted site inspections at the Green Bay Packaging site and the Kraft General Foods site located on Park Center Drive in the Fort Collier Industrial Park. On June 11, reviewed site plans for the Triad Engineering site located in the Airport Business Center, the Food Lion site located in Delco Plaza, and the Mountain View Church of God site located on Valley Pike (Rt. 11S). On June 15, met with representatives of the National Wildlife Federation to discuss new development proposals and existing site requirements. 7. Other June 1-4, Kris Tierney met with members of the senior Government Class at James Wood High School to discuss the rezoning process. PC REVIEW: 07/07/93 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #003-93 PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK LOCATION: 16001+ south of the intersection of Route 50 (Millwood Pike) and Prince Frederick Drive MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-89 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned B2 (Business, General) - land use, vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) - land use, golf course PROPOSED USE: One lot plus Prince Frederick Drive REVIEW EVALUATION: Virginia Dept of Transportation• No objection to the subdivision of this property. See attached letter to Greenway, Inc., from Robert Childress, VDOT, dated May 4, 1993. Sanitation: Phase I Road Dedication Plats, OK County Engineer: Evaluate the need for a storm drainage easement across the Corps lot to accommodate runoff from the Carper's Valley Golf Club property. Also, indicate slope easements. The plat is approved as submitted. When the northern section of Prince Frederick Drive is expanded in width please provide this office with a revised plat. Planning & Zoning• This proposed subdivision is for the establishment of Prince Frederick Drive which will be the entrance from Route 50 (Millwood Pike) running southeast into the Prince Frederick Office Park and for the lot where the new Corp of Engineers building is to be located. This proposed subdivision is in conformance with the approved master plan. -2 - The plats included with the agenda are not totally correct and new plats will be available at the Commission meeting. The included plats show a 60' right-of-way along the GW Motors property. The 20' strip necessary to establish the required 80' right-of-way has been acquired by the applicant and a boundary line adjustment plat is being prepared to include this as part of the applicants property so it can be dedicated as required. The corrected subdivision plat will reflect the full right-of-way since this is also a plat of dedication. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JULY 7, 1993: Approval with the requirement to adequately address any outstanding review agency comments. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER May 4, 1993 TELE (703) 984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 Mr. Richard A. Edens Ref: Prince Frederick Office Park C/O Greenway, Inc. Route 50 970 Baker Lane Frederick County Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Mr. Edens: This office has no overall objections to the development of the referenced project. However, we will be unable to sign off on the dedication plat for Prince Frederick Drive until site plans detailing roadway geometrics and drainage design have been reviewed and approved. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer 6 � � /�. a�": � "/,. - � By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. Steve A. Melnikoff Mr. Robert W. Watkins TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY �0C �' APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Date: 6 /0 93 Application 93 Applicant/Agent: �� ��F N�f /.� y/ J INC, Address: 970 'BA A,51Z 1 -4t -OE. IL �/7'993, 4� allo' F Ftop/4 Fee Paid (,� Phone: (o(„ z,_ 415 Owners name: L E vJ t S Address: MQ.-,-,��r,��5 -� �cK t►.1 Son1 n 107 N• KE hlT :S—%. ! Nc4ttSTE V 0. ZZC�o 1 r Phone: (,G S - O OS O Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: LE vJ %S to . CAS'TE��o W % L- L- ► N M 4k CL -S ME1JT TZ \ C.L-� IkTL-D G' . 'D l cV, U Cj L. Cu smsz. TTLU STEE Contact Person: 2 IC -4A -K12 A. Phone: [Qfo Z - 41 S I Name of Subdivision: 'PR 1 1,1CJE I E.:TEzIC-K o FG t Cs - -A K Number of Lots Total Acreage 1 Ce, 77'7 AC,2E'S Property Location: l (oOb 4-- S o m 7- b F 1 M -T %E- 1Z -� C T 10 ►.J V'I 1 -.v- "A U, -57 CO E o v:- kt 1 gcA4E 5 -t -c T2 . (Give State Rt.#, name, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District S VQ N E IE�' Property Identification Number (PIN)) � &4-- C(,-)) - 8`) 9 Property zoning and present use: 1: � - Z y kGA�-J-r- Adjoining property zoning and use: IP --A 4::yOLG c.L012 Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes ✓ No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes_ No What was the MDP title? 'PR -INCE 'F-W--PF-TZ-'0< Qr(--7iGE -7,14gK Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) I(Q. -7-77 Ac cZ.E-z> Number and types of housing units in this development: Number_ AJ /A Types IV IA 9 m 0 FINAL 'iL139IV(S10H FIAT OF , 'ORTION OF THE LAND OF LE{IVIS I4. COSTELLO, ET AL5 PRINCE FREDERICK OFFIG E FAIZI< 5HAWHEE DIc�TrRIOT — FREDERICK COURT'( VIRGINIA �4.jCTE" SO 50 PLAZA w pf;LGO OAR F E IZ LUN VA LEY u_ F— ,r GOLF Q CLUE to o ~ it 00 U.1 = N w � f� y ~� � SITE o��y z V/C/N/TV f/!AP WI96NESTER AIRPORT ' OWNER'S CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF LEWIS M. COSTELLO, ET ALS IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. RICHARD G. DICK DATE LEWIS M. COSTELLO DATE WILLIAM H. CLEMENT DATE LUCY L_ CUSTER, TRUSTEE DATE MAURICE W. PERRY, TRUSTEE DATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS SUBIDIVISION IS A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO LEWIS M. COSTELLO, WILLIAM H. CLEMENT, LUCY L. CUSTER, RICHARD G. DICK AND MAURICE W. PERRY BY DEEDS DATED OCTOBER 30, 1990 AND DECEMBER 5, 1988 RECORDED IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE IN DEED BOOK 753 AT PAGE 367 AND DEED BOOK 700 AT PAGE 49, RESPECLT�IVVE-LY'. H. BRUCE EDENS, L.S. APPROVALS VA. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION DATE FRED. CO. PLANNING COMM. DATE —FRED. CO. SANITATION AUTH. DATE FRED. CO. SUBD. ADM, DATE AOTE9 _' Ct TAX 1.17. NO. 64-(( A))- 80J K Of l Q ' SCALE NIA DATE: APRIL 2l 10)93`' GREEN WAY INC. 970 Baker Lone , Winchester, Virginia • 22603. 703-662-4185 H. Bruce Edens, L.S.-President SURVEYING - DESIGNING - PLANNING SHEET I of S AL RESIDENTIAL • AGRICULTURAL- COMMERCIAL- INDUSTRIAL- CONSTRUCTION VAIZIAg E � WIpTH 5 57- 45' _—---- _ GO. I I' 30, MAIZLOW BOAI'ZD D. B. 605 , PG. 68,D ZONED: 13-Z UqC-- AUTO SAL ES 970'47'47"E 20. ZS" G 0TH1=R LAND OF C04TELLO ET ALS ZONED = B -Z Uci E : VACANT M 9 0 N S I d-' Uj W M N Y 0 W z � W LL � W U 'Z DC 3 W 6' co 30' Lit 50, 30' t) GUY E, riTZOcHIpER P. B. ( 08, PG- 46 1 ZONED: B -Z LIl7E : IZEglP9tATIA L OTHEIZ LAHP OF GOSTELLO , ET ALS ZONE -0: E5 -,Z - UC7G: VACANT MATCH TO SHEET 3 OF ¢ OEDICAT(0t4 PLAT _OF A PO[ZTI O N OF THE LAND o f LE1!VIC7 M. C05TELL0 ET L9' n� 'T♦ _~PCZINCE=F:�ZEDEIZIGK OFFICE PAIZK N SHAWNEE ©1STRICT--F-lMDEIZICK CodtiTY VIIZGllNlA E SCALE = 1 " = 100' DATE: APRIL 27 I °�'�3 H BRUCE EDENS ML 000162-6 GREENWAY INC. 1970 Baker Lane , Winchester, Virginia 22603. 703-662-4185 H. Bruce Edens,L.S.-President SURVEYING - DESIGNING - PLANNING RESIDENTIAL • AGRICULTURAL• COMMERCIAL- INDUSTRIAL- CONSTRUCTION SHEET 'L of 0 m® UAICH T( "HeET 2 OF 4 - 40 1l 57046' 11 11 C_ I 74.°)I' OTHC-IZ LAW? OF GOSTELLO , ET ALcy ZONED, 13-Z USE - VACANT 4 N 50* 07'7rro Vw 178. r7ZA Z_ I.. P U Ae pj� / ee-A.pk>&C)j=! '9 57' -+ r4o'l I " \N 74.191' OTHER LAND OF COCTELLO , ET AL7 ZONED:5-Z US rz: ' VA CA NT < I I-_- tSp`:>R. v IC, c7 r7o* 07'76o" V\1 407. 'D MATCH TO Cf H e ET 4 0 F+ OIZIGIRAL AIZ15A OF TRACT = ID1.903 AGIZE-9 LECf91 DEDICATION AFEA - -3.341 ACIZEcl LEcf'7 Ira. -777 ACZE LOT = - Ira. 777 ACIZ El'i -71.785 ACIZ15-9 -1ZEMAINING AREA 0_EDlGAT"j'0t'4'--PLAT OFA fOV_TlO8 OF I R C-7 L A K Or- M.:CO5TELLO ET 'A L PARK SHAWNEE V(riTlZlGT- r-lZC-VGlZl0V COUNT i, VICGINIA SCALE z 1" 1001 —DATE: APRIL 27, 1199:3 GREEN WAY INC. 1970 Baker Lone, Winchester, Virginia 22603. 703-662-4185 K Bruce Edens L.S. -President SURVEYING DESIGNING - PLANNING RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL- COMMERCIAL- INDUSTRIAL- CONSTRUCTION TOTAL AREA OF PGOICAT108 =- 3.34-1 AM P_ 5 x folo No. 000162-8 SHEET 3 N 0 T E '. SHADED /` 7EA DENOTES TEMPORA RY GU' _ QE- SAG EAcrEM EK , AS SHO W N . MATCH TO 4HEET 3 of 4 N 50' 07'26" C 204. 80)' Ile �� /01 OTHER LAND OF GOSTELLO, ET ALS ZONED: g-2 dccF- : VACANT N 67' 2I'2oD" E 1 0)00. 80' TEMP CUL -VE- -57 A C UL -VE -SAG ; ^, .a /� 407.D 1' OTHER LAND OF GOciT ELLO , ET ALy ZONED: 13-2 USE : VACANT 5 ro7'Z1'70"iN Ira 1. 07' WINCH EgTe-7 � �ZEGIO_ q AIRP02 G5D PG 1- h155'2 -D'17'' W' ZONED:IZA. USE: AtlzPoeT 21TY 71.4Z' C LIZV E DATA 140. VAVIU`i ARC DELTA 7ANGEK-T (14OR.(7 I IZ2S.5&' GZI.57' 710*03'33" Z 1245.00' IGG.14-' 07038'45" 3 680.00' 204 54-' 17' 14'05" 4 r02 0. 00' 1 sfo.4.V' 17' WO -3 5 25.00' 3424' 7827'47" 6 13215. 00' 17ro. 81 ' 07' :313'4-r7 n 7 1146:5<0' 577.05' 28"53' 30" 317. G3' 543°14`24" W X014.0)4' 83:10' 56305G 48"W/- I(o&.OZ' 103.05` 558'044-' 27" W-203.77' 58'44-' 27" E 155.7°D' 20.41' N lo' S3' .32° E -. -31.&Z' 88.54 N 53' 56' 48" E176. G 8.` 275.11' `: 943'_I*D`-,Z I E ::.571.55' DEDICATION PLAT OF A F09TION OF -THE LAND OF-- LPW Imo, M. GO5T'E LLD ET -ALS FRINGE FREDERICK OFFICE -PAIZK SHAWNEE Di5TIZICT F2EDE121GK COUNTY. VIRGINIA -.� BAJCC CDENS SCALE I "= 100' r DATEAPRIL 27. 1"3 G R E E (V WAY INC. � I�. owi 070 Baker Lane , Wiinchesier, Virginia . 22603. 703-662-4185 H. Bruce Edens, L.S.- President SURVEYING - DESIGNING - PLANNING RESIDENTIAL • AGRICULTURAL- COMME• RCIALINDUSTRIAL- CONSTRUCTION o SHEET 4 • of = 5 U L �- ¢ F— �z� 00 _u)tz —�Q H 50° 97' ZG " F_ - 147. GO' F,�F p� Li (60, Ick _Us7 , To V� F.t;v COSTELLO , ET ALS RETAINED PORTION 7ILI 1.785 ACRES REMAINING�I N Iy N 57' 48' 3ID" E - Z31. 00 i Q LD, �o Lb m o N_ M o N7S'03'-"" E to Z°01.00' Z : s ry 5 5V"'Z8' 3Z'" E I 466.777 ACdK E—S SNEN.GAG CO. W4. 10 z D.B. 234, PG.401) / EX. 50' G As LINE R(W 5�" C7 ZS' S3 CLU CAQPER' 4 VAL►-E'� 60LF 762, P�' 008 GOLF COUtzyE ZOµED'. ii'- A. Ue GUKVE DATA CME N0. RADtu4 MCC DELTA TAN6EMT 30.00' CH01ZD 44"11 65' 23'47 27.68' 5 07'25 33" W 40.6'-)' 00 W i.17 Q 06_Z'J' 107.07 15005,59" 53. BS N 31 54 Mo 30 00' 47.35' 9o'Z53V 30.2Z' N 84'39'47" W 4Z. 58' FNA L`a'SU60IV1510N. PLAT ri=m `YORTIOK OFA OF THE :LAND OF LEWI9':I-M COSTELLO ET Aca , MEINOE DE- KICK, OFFICE PACK + - == N SHAWNEE dlSTRIGT-' fREOERIGK GOURTY, VIKGIN►A - - SCALE = W = 200 DATE. _ APRIL 14. 11)73 a - _ No owl GREEN WAY INC. 970 Bdw Lam, VYnchester, Virginia • 22603- 703-662-4485 ly,_ H. Bruce Edens, L.S.-President SURVEYING -. DESIGNING - PLANNING --- --_ RES I DEAL • AGRICULTURAL- COMMERCIAL= WUSTRIAL• CONSTRUCTION SHEET 5 "af _ r P/C Review Date: 7/7/93 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #005-93 GREENWOOD PARTNERSHIP REALTY LOCATION: On the east side of Route 656 (Greenwood Road), 1/2 mile north of Route 657 (Senseny Road) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55 -A -184A & 55 -A -184D PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Land Use - Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance), RA (Rural Area), - land use, residential, agricultural, and vacant. PROPOSED USE: 88 single family traditional lots REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter, to Greenway, Inc., from Robert B. Childress, VDOT, dated June 1, 1993. Fire Marshal: Burning of land clearing debris requires permit from Fire Marshal's Office. Burning of construction debris on site is not permitted. Post temporary street signs, and addresses when construction begins. Sanitation Authorit . Second review approved. I will require the easements to be 20 ft. wide. County Engineer: We have no comments at this time. Specific review comments will be made after submittal of the subdivision design. Inspections Dept.: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Cade/1990. 2 Planning & Zoning: The proposed Master Development Plan has been revised since the applicant's informal discussion with the Planning Commission on March 3, 1993. The revision was required due to the applicant owning contiguous properties with RP Residential Performance Zoning. The original plan called for 21 single family cluster lots, the revised plan proposes 88 single family detached traditional lots. Staff will address general comments and specific concerns regarding the revised Master Development Plan. GENERAL COMMENTS: The permitted gross density of any development in the RP Residential Performance District which contains 25-50 acres is eight (8) units per acre. The plan proposes 88 single-family, detached traditional residential lots on 40 acres, or 2.2 units per acre. The plan proposes 15,000 square foot lots; therefore, common open space and recreational facilities are not required. The entire site contains no areas defined as floodplain, although there is an intermittent stream that traverses a portion of the area defined as Phase II. SPECIFIC CONCERNS: 1) Buffers - The area specified as Phase I is located along two (2) roads defined as collector roads by the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning ordinance requires residential separation buffers along collector and arterial roads. The plan needs to identify the location of the required buffer area, and provide a profile that shows how the buffer will be developed. 2) Storm Water Management - The proposed storm water management for the area specified as Phase I has changed dramatically since the revision. The original plan provided storm water management areas on the north and south side of Farmington Boulevard. The revised plan does not provide storm water management on the north side of Farmington Boulevard, and has greatly reduced the area for storm water management on the south side. It appears that the storm water management area located by the intermittent stream in Phase II will need to be designed carefully, as that is the low elevation in that part of the development. 3) Environmental Features - Phase II contains areas defined as woodland and steep slope. The applicant has indicated that 8.6% of the area defined as woodland, and 10.50 of the area defined as steep slope will be disturbed. It appears that the applicant has only accounted for the 3 environmental areas that will be disturbed by the proposed road construction. Staff believes that additional woodland and steep slope area will be disturbed through the installation of sewer lines, a sewage pumping station, and the creation of storm water management facilities. The applicant needs to account for the total disturbed area for all environmental features. This is important, as it will determine the amount of steep slope and woodlands that are allowed to be disturbed as individual sites are developed. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 7/7/93 PC MTG • Approval, provided that the applicant receives approval from all review agencies for the revised Master Development Plan, and addresses all comments and concerns of staff and the Planning Commission. COMMONWEALTH H ®f VIRCINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER June 1, 1993 RESIDENT ENGINEER Mr. H. Bruce Edens Ref: Greenwood Road Realty Partnership C/O Greenway, Inc. Route 656 970 Baker Lane Frederick County Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Bruce: Our Location & Design Section has completed their review of the referenced development's master development plan which falls within the limits of our Project #0656-034-118, C502. Our project will be designed within the next year or so and our designers will try to hold the existing centerline location of Route 656 through the intersection with proposed Farmington Blvd. The proposed typical section of Route 656 will be as follows: 24' pavement at 1/4" per V 8' shoulders at 5/8" per V (11' if guardrail) 6' ditches at 4:1 We ask that your design, in as far as practicable, be compatible with this ultimate typical section. For instance: Center of any manholes along Route 656 should be at least 15' from the existing center line. The edge of pavement, shoulders and ditches of Farmington Blvd. should transition around the radii to match those planned for Route 656. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please feel free to give me or Mr. T. L. Jackson a call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer Q01I � J 4 By: Robert B. Childress &YA�,) Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf xc: Mr. Steve A. Melnikoff Mr. Terry L. Jackson Mr. Robert W. Watkins Project File #0656-034-118, C502 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: NA AY ac. 1995 Application # 005-,9a OWNERS NAME: C� E E N WDOD �n/�y �EAI.Ty t�e'r►.1E ¢S H P �QL�a L.. SM �Ttk ® �fch1=At.^�N �. �VTLE2 (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) APPLICANT/AGENT: ('--, CLee3.4V4 PLY % N C C _bRyC,E 'p- DEw15 J Address: q 70 $ E�L-AKIE �ULNEST eyA 03 Daytime Phone Number 70 3 - Co (QZ- 41 aS DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: Address: q '70 B A ,4zy- L o Kc t /.l t�4E S'rE� �i Q ZZLg03 Phone Number Contact Name_ PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST A The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided or is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the preliminary master development plan. All required items must be provided on the PMDP. Background Information: 1. Development's name: -? EXAM Ty �fIR%N i7SN P 2. Location of property: i A57 S / D.4 R� [ SC - !/z rn I. NoRTrF of R7`f I 57 3. Total area of property: I. -799- PVC - 4. Property ID # (14 Digit) C j,5 - /� - JO 1-11D 5. Property zoning and present use /4 7-' - V19 c/tnv-r 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: NoR7-H - if -h (V,1CA1-1T) CAST R CY!}c�,✓7 9,4 L'! 7. Proposed Uses: (,1 ),e Ts 8. Magisterial District: s} A w NfiT 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original ✓ Amended 8 General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Yes ✓ No Scale Yeses- No Legend Yes ✓ No Boundary Survey YesT No Total Area YesNo Topography Yes? No Project Title Yes�- No� Preparation and Revision Date Yeses- No Applicant's Signed Yes No ✓ Consent Statement 2. Number of phases proposed? 0".4- 3. N� 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes No Py/,4 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes ,/ No 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes ✓ No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes " No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes -No- N07 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area (Acres) Floodplains o Lakes.and ponds o Natural retention areas o Steep slopes (15% or more) o Woodlands O 9 % Disturbed Acres in by development Open Space 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Entrances Parking areas Utilities (mains) Yes ✓ No Yes ✓ No Yes No Yes--7'-No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Yes ✓ No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes ✓ No Residential Uses If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following items should be completed. 1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? 'p-1 S/NGtE FRin11-'l T-ie�rD�T�sN/3i l-oT-S 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes No /Yfi Acreage in each housing type Yes No �A Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes ✓ No Total acreage Yes ✓ No Number of dwellings of each type Yes No 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open space? O 10 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes No ✓ 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No ✓ 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes ✓ No 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes / No 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes k No 11 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purpose pf this application, adjoining property is an} property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or ani property directly across a road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on eact adjoining property including the 14 digit tax parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the commissioner of Revenue. NAME _ �rerr-E E• W,NSLoul Address '71\ G V-EF-Av4=V Ropp \-A'ac��L=Q' A Z24gaZ Property ID#" $ - C<A)) - 184 C,k M. SADAJ'P `/p SAmES '09 -CCA V, Address 4-12, �jm � r>1F«�n AvE. W�wc►wSTaR �iA:z�oe� Property ID# cs _ aA)) - ZOO G1 QeNwQoD MORD RsgLLTy 'a'04iii"r-SNI4 Address Tn• $ox 7_097 phi%04C- 'VzrE.2. VA ZZ1oo4 Property ID# 55 -Cl,4y - 184 A A1R.? mas. EUGENE F c.7w< Address 340 N4.p��K1 ,fy(1 >.L Rv. W,r1c�les Q Ja 2zvc2 Property ID# �5-CtA-)i — �$4 S —�8'F(a' MIR.4 s+ntzS. C�-�s C. L,o«c t��w�n Address •p fl SVx 525 7Z4,\\ Property ID# �Rr*►vc► L • VA1i[x Address 9 C)z11�- Property ID# Address .R.r -1 E�ex 53A Property ID# c.5 - (!a)) - 1 Sa A Ce,m'-ar y Co �nC� Address Property ID# _ 14 — ao I �►0�1ve�� Address P,v, (2)"x 110 U 1,161 el�ei 1114 2,26 d Property ID# _ o any lob �7 Address Property ID# 13 J1 P/C Review Date: 3/03/93 P/C Review Date: 7/07/93 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #002-93 RYLAND HOMES Off Premise Business Sign LOCATION: On the west side of Route 647 (Aylor Road) at the intersection of Westmoreland Drive MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER 75000OA0000370 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned B-1 (Neighborhood Business), land use - Church ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• Zoned B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and RP (Residential Performance), land use - vacant, residential and Interstate 81 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. Inspections Department• Sign shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 311, Use Group U (utility and misc.) of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Planning Department• (March 3, 19931 Since this sign is so far removed from the subdivision that it advertises, it is considered a business sign and not a simple real estate sign. Off premise business signs require a conditional use permit. The sign is currently existing and this application is a result of a complaint against the applicant. Page 2 Black CUP (July 7, 1993) This application was previously approved by the Commission. Prior to the public hearing at the Board of supervisors meeting it was discovered that one adjoining property owner had not been notified and the applicant was required to resubmit a corrected application. There is an intervening parcel between the parcel where the sign is located and the adjoiner that was not notified, however, the parcel is owned by the same party. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JULY 7, 1993 PC MEETING: Approval with the following condition: 1. That the sign meet all the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia. 0 �Cy. - Co 333'i ��!"G•G. Submittal Deadline S �j P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1• A licant (The applicant if the owner `�_ other) NALME : ADDRESS: TELEPHONE / %J R ) X-/_ S_ 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: ar T I /rr lti� v�.C.�th — �' 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions) r/#- z 61/119 X171.9 : g►11 I g -z 1W 6&r bus? -ecr 4. The property has a road frontage depth of U4. 4/7 of ISV- 07 feet and • a feet and consists of . e 3 G acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned b 4t1• s evidenced by deed from vtK t til a - ' --- uNe� ,•d �ttrir;iVcrecorded (previous owner) [9'� in deed book no. an page I{, registry of the County of Frederick. kepex 7-a ��ED 130v,� 353- p5• / 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. IS-- ,3-7 Magisterial District 210 Current Zoning --- 7. Adjoining Property: usE North G i ZONING - -�--- East South West ------------ page -2- CUP Application August, .1990 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Plannin Dept. before completing) i 9. It is -proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: /U4 �t-C 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property sought to be permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER. NAME 6 d / Addressd Tad x F3 S�- G747 ZZd Property IDO% A -3`7 7 � � Address S-0 yb Property IDS 42,�WKe%o Addres s S7) / L 41 (CV- e-4 Sfcf kXil-d Cr Property IDF .S- /4 - I -f7V+A4F f 4;-a LK M Address(p z� �01. YAC - � k -a. � Ct Property IDO -7 S, jq 47-35-� Address Property IDO Address Property ID,J I page -3 - CUP Application August, 1990 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. show Proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. fjAjjjD t '�-�- -zY I a"A 4-0- x N, Page -4- CUP Application August, 1990 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 Supervisor Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address V. 01 &x 9 di c��2z ��� Owners' Telephone No. ZL--z- e5l�-6? 71M 969-7- � Z— P/C Review Date: 7/07/93 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #006-93 INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS Private Fraternity Lodge LOCATION: On the southwest side of Route 620 (Miller Road) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER 62-A-13 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential and agricultural. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential and agricultural. PROPOSED USE: Build and operate a private fraternity lodge for the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation• No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Prior to development a complete set of site plans detailing entrance design and drainage features will be required for review. Entrance(s) will have to be located to meet minimum sight distance requirements. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way will be covered under a land use permit. Fire Marshal: Each phase of construction on this project will require site plans. Specific fire and rescue comments will be addressed on those plans. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Shall comment on Use Group at the time of site and building plans review. Page 2 Health Department: The proposed usage of the house should not exceed existing water usage and the septic system appeared to have no problems but is not being approved at this time. New construction will require an application with the Health Department and an evaluation at that time. Planning Department: The Zoning Ordinance permits nationally chartered fraternal lodges or civic clubs, social centers, and their related facilities as a conditional use in the Rural Area (RA) Zoning District. Outdoor recreation, athletic, or park facilities are also permitted as a conditional use in the RA zoning district. This application states that the Independent Order of Odd Fellows intend to build a new lodge and possibly construct a soccer field, baseball diamond, basketball court, tennis court and a large fishing pond. This would all be consistent with the allowed conditional uses. It may not be relevant to this process, but important to point out, that the house on this property, the June Bageant residence, has been identified as a historical site and may be considered for inclusion in the national register of historical homes. A site plan that adequately addresses storm water management, traffic patterns, buffers and screening and facility locations should be required. Since the Health department has stated that "the proposed usage of the house should not exceed existing water usage and the septic system appeared to have no problems but is not being approved at this time, and that new construction will require an application with the Health Department and an evaluation at that time", this could easily be a limiting factor in the possible development of this property. since it is proposed that this site be developed to a more intense use than normally expected in this zoning district, the adjoining residential and allowed uses should be protected. With this in mind, a site plan engineered to B-2 Zoning District standards is recommended. This would require a category B buffer and paved parking lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JULY 7, 1993 PC MEETING: Approval with the following conditions: 1. A site plan prepared to B-2 standards be presented to and approved by the County prior to site development. 2. A category B buffer be provided where this parcel is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes. 3. All review agency comments be complied with. Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner X other) [Purchaser Under Contract NAME: Independent Order of Odd Fellows- of Purchase] ADDRESS: 2720 Middle Road Winchester, Virginia 22601 TELEPHONE 703 667-7943 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: Estate of June W. Bageant [Ralph M. Ba eant, Drew W. Ba eant and Robyn D. Mann heirs 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions) 7.26 aLr-e-$��uthwest side of Route 620 (Miller Road) -in Back Creek - Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia. 4. The property has 'a road frontage of 974.55 depth of 603.90 feet and consists of 7.26 (Please be exact) (see attached survey) feet and a acres. 5. The property is owned by Estate of June W. Bageant as evidenced by deed from Minnie J. Rudd, widow recorded (previous owner) • in deed book no. 262 on page 151 registry of the County of Frederick. M 14 --Digit Property Identification No. Magisterial District Back Creek Current Zoning A2 (agricultural) 7. Adjoining Property: USE North agricultural/residential East a ricultural/residential South a ricultural/residential West agricultural/residential 62000-A-0000-0013 ZONING A 14 d= , �u�1993 C DEQ. 0v i ' Abp DEVELOPMEtiL C� page -2- CUP Application August, 1990 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) build and operate a private fraternity lodge for Independent Order of Odd Fellows. 9. It is -proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: new lodge building.." in the future, _possibly will construct soccer field. baseball diamond. basketball court. tennis court, and large fishing pond. (see attached proposed sketch 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property sought to be permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME Jennings R. Marston Address Route 4, Box 345 wliicbestpr, Virginia 22601 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0001 Craig L. McFarland - Address `= Route 4, Box 347 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0002 James E. Linaburg Address 274 Miller Road WJnrhP.-,n=r, Virginia 22602 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0003 Estate of c%o H.M. Charles Tokes Brooks Address 501 South Braddock Street Wi11Chk-.qt-t=-r- Virginia 22601 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0004 H.M. Brooks Address 501 South Braddock Street Wincbe-ster, Virginia 99601 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0005 Addie C. Davis Address Route 4, Box 348 Winchester Virginia 22601 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0006 ft -A" Address Route 4, Box 348 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0007 Addie C. Davis Address Route 4, Box 348 Mary Louise Byrd Winchester, Virginia 22601 Property -ID# 62000-A-0000-0008 Address Route 4, Box 355-A Holmes R. Nail Property ID# 62000-h00090r0009 Manley I. Nelson Address 115 Miller Road Pr,rginia 22609 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0010 Second Opequon Address 125 Linden Drive Presbyterian Vir-Sipja 226()] Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0011 Second Opequon Address 125 Linden .Drive Presbyterian property ID# 62000-A-0000-0012 Address Route 4, Box 350 John M. Senyitko Winchester Virginia 22601 property ID# 62000-A-0000-0014 . Address Route 4, Box 350 John M. Senyitko property ID# 62000-A-0000-0015 Address Route 4, Box 350-N Winchester Virginia 22601 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0016; Timothy P. Giroux Address 115 Schoolmarm Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Robert C. Nelson property ID# 62000-A-0000-0017 Address 125 coo marm ane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Patrick H. Green Property ID' 62000-A-0000-0018 Address 520 Apple Valley Road Winchester,- inia 22602 Charles L. Barr Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0019 - . NAME Address Post Office Box 3921 Sadie P. Nelson Winchester Virginia Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0020 Address Route 4, Box 349 ,1i Mr�l�r aQsi Robert B. Groundwater Winchester Virginia 22601 Property -ID# 62000-A-0000-0021 and 62000 -A -0000-0021A Address 347 Schoolmarm Lane Winchester. property ID# 62000-A-0000-0022 Winnifred Anne Crew Address 263 Fox Meadow Lane 926n? Dr. Robert S. Boyd Winchester, VirginJA Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0023 Address Route 4, Box 357 Winchester Virginia 22601 Teddy L. Zick Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0024 Address 713 Quaint Acres I. William Zartman Silver Spring, Maryland 20904 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0025 Address 2463 Cedar Creek Grade Edward C. Copenhaver Winchester, VirgiQia 22602 Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0026 Address. 2463 Cedar Creek Grade " Winchester Virginia 22602 Edward C. Copenhaver Property ID# 62000-A-0000-0027 Address 2463 Cedar Creek Grade Edward C. Copenhaver Property ID#' 62000-A-0000-0028 Address Property ID# Address Property ID# i23 56 Address ) g93 Property ID# L page -S- CUP Application August, 1990 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 6';2-0 IOUTE SIX T1 A -ZERO SOCCER FIELD BASEBALL DIAMOND FUTURE LARGE FISING POND AA W VA v4(ns�hI BASKETBALL COURT HOUSE TEMP. MEETING PLACE TENNIS COURT HUBERT SMOKE fA® ,. page -4- CUP Application August, 1990 12. Additional comments, if any: Our organization is a family fraternity lodge. We want to establish a place for our members to bring their families together for a time of fellowship. We feel our organization and plans for this property would..be an asset to the surrounding area. Incidents related to alcohol and drugs will not be tolerated on this property. 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' polic hearing. Signature of Applicant.,:- Signature pplicant._- Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Owners' Telephone No. 703.) 662-3298 3 0 i - m :;hcet 1 of ROUTE 620 - 30' PRESCRIPTIVE R/� 593.44 N 390 14 59 W HOUSE O�. /00 7.26 ACRES �O O 2po �qc 80 O 0 ,N S 410 19 31•• I.P. M �O Ln t o o W d o o HOLMES NAIL w w w, -N N N CO _ CO M N N o o M a U N Ir FAY MILLER HOUSE N 46. 39 52'E 89.91 Q HERBERT SMOKE t S 45° IO 14: E Z1 15S 25.00' C1�uROH Lo -r The above plat is a survey of the land conveyed to Ralph W. Bageant and June W. Bageant March 11, 1960 in Deed Book 262 - Page 151. The said Land lies along the Southwest side of Route 620 in Back Creek District, Frederick County, Virginia. Beginning at a point in the Center Line of Route 620 and corner to the Second Opequon :�esbyterian Church Lot, Thence with Route 620 for the following five courses: N 42° 06' E - 178.25' to the P.C.; Thence with the Arc Line 100.54', Chord Line N 44°.23''10" E - 100.52' to the P.T.; Thence N 460 39' 52" E - 89.91' to the P.C,; Thence with the Arc Line (cont'd) CUP #006-93 LOYAL ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS PIN # 62-A-13 FREDERICK COUNTY LOCATION MAP P/C Review Date: 7/07/93 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #008-93 THOMAS A. JANNUZZI Cottage Occupation Adult Care Facility Some for Adults LOCATION: Off of Route 715 (Little Mountain Church Road) in the Cedar Grove area MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER 31 -A -11B PROPERTY ZONING _& PRESENT USE• Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential, agricultural and church PROPOSED USE: ..Full time adult care facility for 5 or less patients. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to-VOOT minimum commercial standards. Fire Marshal: See attached letter to Thomas Jannuzzi from Douglas Riracofe, Fire Marshal, dated June 9, 1993. Inspections Department• Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. This will be for five residents and a staff of two. Health Department: See attached letter to Thomas Jannuzzi from Greg Lloyd, Health Department, dated June 17, 1993. Page 2 Planning Department: This use is authorized as a cottage occupation in the Rural Area Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). As stated in the Fire Marshal's letter to the applicant, if the number of residents accommodated does not exceed five, the facility will fall under the "Residential Use Group". Letter to the applicant from the Health Department states that their approved health permit would allow only four full time residents plus the two owners with the condition that water -saving plumbing fixtures are installed. The letter further states that if additional soil suitability tests are performed and an additional 100 foot field drain is installed, the installation could be approved for five residents. Applicant has advised that he intends to carry through with this to obtain authorization for five patients if possible. Failing this, he understands he will be restricted to four patients. Since the facility for this use has not yet been constructed, compliance with the requirements to accommodate this use should be easily incorporated into the construction plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JULY 7, 1993 PC MEETING: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. That all review agency comments are complied with. 2. That the number of residents is limited to that authorized by the health permit. 3. That expansion beyond five residents/patients will require a new conditional use permit and a site plan. 4. That all state and local requirements for an adult care facility are complied with at all times. ` COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT 9 N. Loudoun Street, 2nd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Thomas W. Owens Director June 9, 1993 Thomas W. Jannuzzi 617 Hillman Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Jannuzzi, Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire Marshal This is a follow up of our conversation last week regarding your Conditional Use Permit application. As I understand your application, you will initially have a resident count of five (S) persons or less which would keep your facility in a "Residential" Use Group. I also understand that there will be around the clock staff at the facility. As I have previously stated, the use group of the facility could change in the future depending on the number of occupants, and whether there are persons with mental or physical disabilities that would require the building to comply with the "Institutional" requirements in the building code. Should you need any further information on this C.U.P. please do not hesitate to call me. Respectful r �V Douglas A. iracofe Fire Marshal DAK:31c cc: Planning Dept. File DIRECTOR - (703) 665-5618 FIRE MARSHAL - (703) 665-6350 FAX - (703) 678-0682 _06i17i93 15:53 V703 722 3479 ENV:Health 069 [a 003 Lord Fairfax Environmental Health District 800 Smithfield Avenue P. O. Box 2056 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 722-3480 FAX (703) 722-3479 Counties of.• Clarke, Frederick, Page. .Shenandoah, Warren, and City of Winchester Thomas A. Jannuzzi June 17, 1993 617 Hillman Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Jannuzzi, I am writing this letter to inform you that my previous letter dated June 3, 1993 is in error. These letters are written in response to your request for a conditional use permit for an adult care facility. I did not realize that an adult care facility has a different design flow from a residential facility. Consequently, I can only approve your facility for two (2) staff who are full-time residents plus four (4) beds for the adult care patients. This is with the condition of permanent water. -saving plumbing fixtures. My previous letter had said that there could be five (5) beds. This was in error, as this Would be more than the design flow for the existing system. You would only have to add one more 100 foot line to the system to make it adequate for five (5) beds. However, this would require an additional soil evaluation (perk test), and there is no guarantee that the Health Department would approve this expansion unless the soil meets current regulations. To summarize: Your present system is adequate for two staff who are full-time residents and four beds for adult care patients. Any additional beds would require an expansion of the existing drainfield. Any expansion of the existing drainfield requires the following: 1) Submission of application for expansion to the Health Dept. along with $50.00 fee. 2) Health Dept. conducts soil evaluation to determine soil suitability. You are responsible for hiring a backhoe to dig pats for the soil evaluation. 3) If soil meets the regulations, then system can be expanded. If soil does not meet the regulations, then facility will not be approved for expansion. I want you to understand that even though you only need one more line, there is no guarantee that this will be approved unless the soil meets current criteria as specified in the VA Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations If you have any further questions, please contact me, GML/gml Sincerely, cc: Frederick County Planning and Zoning Health Dept. files 6'trel - Gregory M. Lloyd Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA r 1un�e r�.l�f�3 Ju q93 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: T44oY- , A 6 & L -o ZTA tJ tJ � d� 1 ADDRESS: (a j 31L'L MA KI VA' Q1 TELEPHONE 03 1 7 - /-77d 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: ' sAt ./I:) 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 715 In 4. The property has a road frontage of VLA feet and a depth of feet and consists of y,/3 acres. (Please be ex ct) - 5. The property is owned by s , Janao as evidenced by deed from L Bohn recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. �2']D on page S27 _, as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 --Digit Property Identification No. 3100p 0,4 QODD lI Magisterial District GAI O O Current Zoning a H ur ? -7. Adjoining Property: �LI�N USE ZONINGNorthhaus a urs ' �� e� :-'Q / f'101993 East South Dnct ure /hoas�. re P Westhot! 1 -� e i rre ° 8. The type ofuse proposed is (consult with the Planning -Dept. before completing) O - >4 �{ Care bac J. f 1►censed N" C7Y►1 � -;-tJr dd u I f S 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be `t constructed: tt CU Se � 120r oY r n1 tk_ly 4R X ;i J► �. 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 hererequested 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 klfZP)Y i JW)ITO P. Address 3`tl woods M;11 Drl'tke, S 5 a n ,VA. 4,2 Property IDm 3i A (-IMF- MoUNTAW UNIM-D Address o1a8 .Sheplao cal, Av,e- M�tHODIST C1{i�IQCH keS" ;- A- dol of Property ID# 31 A jQ e�a tc)11,+AAM PITLock Same ax, abooe) Address (Sctc.,e CLS G,bove� Property IDm 31 14 11A K I Pk- i FRED E_. Q Address 4115 Li+� le Ous7fpr;I CY+urcG� . k fer VA. OU 03 La✓ ©Na L. Property ID# 3 / A 11 UM ftNOU R 1 C Rtes Address 175 Li+t I -v-- Moun-fa111 CE (.trr-o 1z�q , k e e VQ �2&o3 Property ID# 3 ! la MCIDUiNtSS I L'OU1S -J. Address /_ 1 2 n ""'7/LI i n (A I -- ' Leri "F1 eaCro ROI c2,2 Property IDI 31 A 30 M 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. FOU l `o MC II, S NES - 3 7 57 54„ S _.._..._. �_ la o- 0 a Il�ll N 9.127 AC. 0 r 4-r�2 'oCr+i 2 1 Jp/ ,VO PRo Po S r� /fo.�rc' ~3Z-� `18 x 3 2 CAPPRox.� I2 S GATT: n . z M 10 (-N 4 O n O N n ; m o < 0 Ck: N p z o co x O W 2 4-r�2 'oCr+i 2 1 Jp/ ,VO PRo Po S r� /fo.�rc' ~3Z-� `18 x 3 2 CAPPRox.� I2 S GATT: n . z M 10 (-N 4 O n O N n ; m o < 12. Additional comments, if any: When full capacity is reached On approximately 1-2 years), a total of 5 adults, in addition to my wife and myself, will occupy the facility_ i do not anticipate going beyond 5 elderly adult occupants. Cly wife and myself will be full time residents since this will be our home as well as an adult care facility. The dwelling itself is an average size Cape Cod house: approx. 36' X 31' with a 24' X 20' addition. It will consist of a first & second floor with a full basement (except for under the addition). Total sq. ft. (excluding basement) is approx. 2,300. If approved, this this facility should have a minimal impact on the surrounding property owners, i.e., about the same impact as would a typical family dwelling. The dwelling will be located off the main road and completely hidden by trees from all adjacent property owners. I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing AddresE Owners' Telephone No. TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: �O 2a4—a4 7 30127 6 Z79--85 Z76 ---M2 d8 125A 5 Little, 9 Mountain Ch3 10 151 v 2 152 32 14 12 11 0) �2� 12 13 ��5 ,Td 15 R�, 114D 16 104 c,� 113 25 24Q ,,1 114C 112 god 21 20 175 c,� ar rove 0 102 156 . D 101 103 39• LOke 0 .tee 100 98 99 BM 771 'Qt �o�ticn°� R� ~ ~n Q B 98B 158 156C 156B A n 9 � s a°ss• w t SC a „ 81 98� CUP x}008-93 PIN r# 31—A-118 THOMAS JANNUZZi FREDERICK COUNTY LOCATION M, P/C review date: 7/07/93 REZONING APPLICATION #001-93 DODSON BROTHERS EXTERMINATION CO., INC To Rezone 2.0581 acres From RP (Residential Performance) To B-2 (Business General) LOCATION: North and adjacent to Shawnee Drive (Route 652) approximately 20001+ east of Route 11/Route 652 Intersection MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-A-112 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) present use - vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Ml (Light Industrial) and M2 (General Industrial) present use - Office and recreation center, industrial and vacant PROPOSED USE: Dodson Extermination Business REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept of Transportation: No objection to rezoning of this property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Forth Edition for review. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Fire lanes will be required at all hydrants or siamese connections on site. It appears that the existing hydrants will adequately protect this site. This will be verified on site plans. The only emergency service identified in the impact statement is the Sheriff's Dept. Fire and Rescue is an emergency service that must be addressed in future rezoning requests. Page 2 Dodson Rezoning On this site the impact will be an incident involving pesticides, should one occur. The size of the facility will limit the quantity of pesticides so impact should be minimal. All other fire and rescue comments will be addressed on site plan. Comments from Stephens City VFD will be an addendum to this review. Health Department: Water usage to remain under 300 gpd. A new application is required for any greater water usage. No assurance of further functioning of septic system is implied. County Engineer: We have no comments at this time. However, we will carefully review the design of the new heated garage to insure there is adequate safe storage of pesticides. City of Winchester: Change from residential to commercial/ industrial seems logical. City portion of Shawnee Drive has been designated for 60' right-of-way ultimately (e.g. 10' dedication on each side of existing 40' right-of- way). Planning : Location - The site is located in an area that is extensively industrial in nature. While Shawnee Drive still has some residential properties, the area is in transition. The Henkle-Harris industrial park is directly across the street, the new Youth Development Center is adjacent to the west and to the north is vacant M-1 zoning. Only the property to the east remains zoned RP. Just beyond this property are additional business and industrial uses. Site Suitability - The site is very nearly level with only about ten feet of change in elevation across the entire parcel. The rear property line is coterminous with the centerline of Hogue Creek. Because of the very slight rise in elevation, roughly the northern half of the property lies within the f loodplain. The potential use of this area would therefore be severely limited. The five foot right-of-way dedication shown along the frontage of the property should be ten feet. Potential Impacts - Traffic that would be expected from the development of the parcel under B-2 zoning would not be significantly greater than if the property were developed to it's highest potential density under the RP regulations. Page 3 Dodson Rezoning The proposed use of the existing septic system on the property appears to be sufficient for the pest control business. Expansion of the business or utilization of the property for other commercial uses might well require a hook up to central sewer. Sewer and water demand should not exceed what would be expected from RP use of the property. Care will need to be taken in the development of the site so as not to disturb the floodplain in such a way as to impact downstream properties. This issue will be addressed at the site plan stage. Visual impacts of the proposed use could be minimal with sensitivity being taken at the site planning stage. Some impact can be expected to emergency services per the Fire Marshal comments. The type of fire and rescue demands resulting from commercial use of the property, while of a different sort, should not be significantly greater than high density residential use of the property. conclusions - Given the location of the parcel in an area of transition from residential to business, the level nature of the parcel, the availability of sewer and water and the relatively minor impacts of the proposed use compared to possible residential development, the site seems well suited for B-2 zoning. Approval, e®-��t REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff: Zoning Amendment Number oci-93 Date Received Submittal Deadline to -11-9:5 Application Date WW913 PC Hearing Date 7_-7 i3 BOS Hearing Date g -V-13 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. 1. Applicant: Name: DODSON BROTHERS EXTERMINATION CO INC r Address: 3712 Cam bell Avenue3L nchbur Va 24506�i99� Telephone: (804) 847-9051 ����A tk�� 0so. ;Otto 2. owner: `. Name: DODSON BROTHERS EXTERMINATION CO INC Address: 3712 Campbell Avenue Lynchburg, Va 24506 Telephone: (804) 847-9051 In addition, the Code of Virginia allows us to request full dis- closure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be re- zoned: Marital Trust I of B.F. Dodson, Mrs. Dorothy H. Dodson Marital Trust II of B.F. Dodson, Mrs. Dorothy H. Dodson Bertram F. Dodson, Jr. Bonny L. Dodson Karen D. Whitt Sr. for Benefit of Sr, for Benefit of 2,500 Shares 3,580 Shares 1,580 Shares 1,010 Shares 1,010 Shares Total Outstanding Shares 9,680 Shares 3. zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed from RP to B-2. . 4. Location: The property is located at (give exact directions): North & Adjacent to Shawnee Drive (St. Rt. 652), approximately 2000'± east of Rt.11/Rte. 652 Intersection. 5. Parcel Identification: Tax Parcel Number: 63-A--112 6. Magisterial District: Shawnee 7. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned. Total Area: 2.0581 Acres �DS�R�1g93 DEPT - AMI) IOpME e D The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted: 2.0581 Acres Rezoned to B-2 Frontage: 3551± Feet Dept: 246'± Feet 8. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed: Conveyed from: Deed Page: Dorothy J. Smith 734 Deed Book Number: 0006 9. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses. Dodson Extermination Business Owners of the Property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any prop- erty directly across the road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 21 -digit tax parcel identification number which may be ob- tained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. Name: Thomas C. Clark, Sr. Address: 3158 Shawnee Dr. Winchester, Va 22602 Property I.D.#: 63-A-113 Name: Youth Development Center Address: P.O. Box 3243 Winchester, Va 22602 Property I.D.#: 63 -A -110B Name: The Henkel Harris Co., Inc. Address: P.O.Box 2170 Winchester, Va 22604 Property I.D.#: 63-A-110 Name: American Woodmark Corporation Address: P.O. Box 1980. Winchester, Va 22604 Property I.D.#: 63-A-115 CITY OF WINCHESYTER Name: Daniel Lee Keyser, et ux Address: 311 N. Pleasant Valley Rd. Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: Tax Map 350, Block 1 Lot 10 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 materi als are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. /,Applicant: • �a�So � $2ns. fx-teerr.��.�N �'�• Znl C,. XOwner: —Dpcjsa. 3r-Ims_ 12.Representation: If the application is being represented by someone other than the owner or application and if questions about the application and if questions about the application should be directed to that representative, please list the following. Representative's Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr.- P.E. Representative's Phone Number: (703) 667-2139 'v: � i °WID oVELoe*EW. Environmental & Planning Impacts �e93 for ,��� er Dodson ExterminatingCo.,CoInc . � May 93✓,1�+o� ,c1 Introduction The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to evaluate the above referenced project in light of several major planning issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Planning Staff. This document is prepared in support of and in preparation to rezone 2 acres from present Residential Performance (RP) to Business General District (B-2), as described on the attached Generalized Development Plan. In summary the land is affected as follows: 1. Traffic Impacts The change in trips generated by the site as a result of the proposed rezoning is determined by relating the estimated trips per day generated by development under the existing zoning to the predicted traffic volumes caused by the proposed use. Existing Trip Generation - with multi family development at 7 units per acre. Avg Weekday Vehicle Trips ITE Land Zoning Units TrTns Generated Use Code RP 14 6.103 85 220 (apartment) Proposed Trip Generation - on 1 acre site at 3000 sq. ft. development and .3 FAR on other 1 acre site. Gross Avg Weekday Leasable Vehicle Trips ITE Land Zoning Ac. 1000 sq. ft. Trips/1000 sq. ft. Generated Use Code B-2 2 16 6.967 112 110 (general light industrial)- Increase ndustrial)_ Increase volume due to this rezoning action is 27 trip ends per day. 2. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts: Sewage service to this site is provided by on site septic field. No impact to the existing sewage system is anticipated. The existing pest control service has 11 employees, at 25 gpd per employee, producing 275 gpd of waste flow would be produced, which is less than the per home criteria of 400 gpd used by the Department of Health. Future sewage needs would be served by a connection to Hogue Run Interceptor located to the rear of the site. 3. Water Supply Impacts: An existing water service exists at the site. Water use can be expected to equal sewer flows per item 2. Fire service is available. No significant impact exists in providing water service. 4. Education Cost: This project will generate no school age children. An obvious decrease in the facilities required to be provided by the County is realized. Net deduct per the rezoning impact model is .335/unit X 25 units = 8.4 students. 5. Parks and Recreation Cost: A large part of the site will remain as open space. The Zone A flood plain area for Hogue Creek will not be disturbed. The impact on Parks and Recreation is decreased since no home sites, whose families would complete for use of existing Parks and Recreation facilities, would be developed. 6. Drainage Facility Impacts: The development of this business will increase run off over that which would occur under existing use only slightly. The increase impervious area is small relative to the entire site size. Hogue Run is certainly an adequate channel for the small increases to be expected. A large green space area buffering the creek will help to filter this runoff. 7. Emergency Services Cost: I Sheriff protection will be required by this facility. Routine patrols of the area should suffice for the majority of time . Special patrols and activities may }include a total of 1/4 hour per week. Special coverage at $50.00 per hour wn 8o 4d involve approximately $650.00 per year. There should be no other impacts on emergency services. This represents essentially no increase in service over whatwould have been required if development occurred under the existing zoning. 8. Solid Waste Cost: Costs to the County would be normal for this type of development. No special waste removal needs are planned. Waste removal is available by private contractor. 9. Environmental Impacts: There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including run off, sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. A minor increase in run off quantity and a decrease in quality is probable from this development. The effects on the downstream areas should be minimal and in accordance with local and state regulations. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with increased traffic, as mentioned. 10. Other Fiscal Impacts: No other impacts were noted. 11. Historic Impacts: No other impacts were noted. RAM/kf Ron Mislowsky, P.E. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineer RS V DOD DEyELOpMFlI1^ AMENDMENT FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Approvals: Planning Commission July 7 1993 Board of Supervisors AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP #001-93 of DODSON BROTHERS EXTERMINATION CO., INC. WHEREAS, Rezoning application #001-93 of Dodson Brothers Extermination Co., Inc., to rezone 2.0581 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) located north and adjacent to Shawnee Drive, east of the Route 11/Route 652 intersection, in the Shawnee District, and designated by PIN 63-A- 112. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on July 7, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this application on ----- -- 11 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 good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: That Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 2.0581 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) located north and adjacent to Shawnee Drive (Rt. 652), east of the Route 11/Route 652 intersection, in the Stonewall District, and designated by PIN 63-A-112. This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this --------- day of -----, 1993. A Copy Teste John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: Proposed Amendments to Article XX, Definitions, of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance DATE: June 18, 1993 Staff presented proposed amendments regarding definitions for inoperable motor vehicles and mobile homes to the Planning Commission on May 19, 1993. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments and suggested that staff create definitions that closely parallel language in the Code of Virginia. The definitions provided in this memorandum were determined to be acceptable to the Commonwealth Attorneys Office. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider the proposed amendments and provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The following definitions have been recommended to the Planning Commission by staff: Inoperable Motor Vehicle - Any motor vehicle which is not in operating condition, or any vehicle which has been partially or totally disassembled by the removal of tires and wheels, the engine, or other essential parts required for operation of the vehicle or on which there are displayed neither valid license plates nor a valid inspection decal. Mobile Home - A structure, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which in travel mode is eight (8) body feet or more in width or forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet and which is built in a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. 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: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert Watkins, Director &,�/ SUBJECT: Planning Commission Bylaws DATE: June 17, 1993 Please find attached a final draft of the proposed Planning Commission bylaws. These have been reviewed by the Commonwealth Attorney's office. Please feel free to make any additional changes. The staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the bylaws. RWW/slk attachment 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Commission ARTICLE I - AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick Countyand in accord with the provisions of Section 15.1-427.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission." ARTICLE II - PURPOSE 2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the. Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP 3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick Countv. ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS 4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee. 4-2 Selection 4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the first meeting of the calendar year. 4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor at the first meeting of the calendar year. Elections of officers shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be declared elected. 4-3 Duties 4-3-1 The Chairman shall: 4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings. 4-3-1-2 Appoint committees. 4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two- thirds majority vote of the members present. 4-3-1-3 Report official communications. 4-3-1-4 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission. 4-3-1-5 Certify minutes as true and correct copies. 4-3-1-6 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Commission. 4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall: 4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the chairman to act. 4-3-2-2 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Commission. 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. 4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded. 4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings. 4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings. 4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. 4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings. 4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the Commission. 4-3-3-5 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Commission. 4-3-4 Term of Office - Officers shall be elected for a one year term or until a successor takes office. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office. 4-3-5 Temporary Chairman - In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice- chairman. ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES 6-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. 6-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose, membership, and terms of office for each committee. 6-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. 6-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 6-5 The chairman and vice-chairman shall be ex -officio members of every committee. ARTICLE VII - MEETINGS 7-2 Regular meetings shall be held at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. 7-3 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. 7-4 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. 7-5 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for executive sessions as allowed by the Code of Virginia, as amended. 7-6 The Planning Commission may hold an executive session only according to the requirements of and for the purposes described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. 7-7 Worksessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. ARTICLE VIII - VOTING 8-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. 8-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE IX - OPERATING RULES 9-1 Order of Business 9-1-1 Call to Order 9-1-2 Consideration of Minutes 9-1-3 Secretary's Report 9-1-4 Committee Reports 9-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda 9-1-6 Unfinished Business 9-1-7 New Business 9-1-8 Adjournment 9-2 Minutes - The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting, and on adoption by the Commission, these minutes shall become a public record. The Chairman and Secretary shall sign all minutes at the end of the year, certifying that the minutes are true and correct. 9-3 Procedures 9-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 9-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration. 9-3-3 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: 9-3-3-1 Report by the Secretary, County Staff or Commission Members 9-3-3-2 Presentation by Applicant 9-3-3-3 Citizen Comment 9-3-3-4 Rebuttal by Applicant 9-3-3-5 Discussion by Commission 9-3-3-6 Motion and action by Commission 9-3-4 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Vir inia or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may allow public comment. 9-3-5 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 9-3-6 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published minutes. 9-3-7 Public Hearings 9-3-7-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Virginia or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia. 9-3-7-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 9-3-7-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws. 9-3-8 Master Development Plans - Master development plans shall be considered by the Commission according to the following procedures: 9-3-8-1 Presentation by Applicant 9-3-8-2 Report by the Secretary, County Staff or Commission Members 9-3-8-3 Citizen Comment 9-3-8-4 Rebuttal by Applicant 9-3-8-5 Discussion by Commission 9-3-8-6 Motion and action by Commission 9-3-9 Tabling 9-3-9-1 Agenda items may be laid on the table by the Commission. In such cases, such items should be tabled for a specific period of time, to be put back on the agenda at a particular scheduled meeting. 9-3-9-2 The Commission shall table items for which insufficient information has been provided or for which the rules of the Code of Virginia or the Code of Frederick County have not been met. 9-3-10 Worksessions 9-3-10-1 The Commission may hold worksessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 9-3-10-2 Worksessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meeting or at times scheduled by the Commission for worksessions at the first meeting of the year. 9-3-10-3 Notice of worksessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 9-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 9-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a worksession. 9-3-10-6 Worksessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a worksession. 9-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all worksessions and the items discussed. 9-3-11 Adjournment - In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and in all cases the Commission shall adjourn by 11:00 P.M. ARTICLE X - AMENDMENTS 10-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II `L RE: 1993-1994 Secondary Road Construction Budget DATE: June 18, 1993 The Virginia Department of Transportation has asked that the Board of Supervisors endorse the Frederick County portion of the 1993-1994 Staunton District Secondary Construction Budget. This budget is derived from the priorities specified in the Frederick County Six Year Secon ary Road Improvement Plan. ne Board of upervisors will consider the proposed Secondary Construction Budget during their July 14, 1993 meeting. The Frederick County Transportation Committee reviewed this budget during their regular meeting on June 7, 1993. The Transportation Committee recommended that the priorities funded under the 1993-1994 Secondary o roved as presented by the Virginia Depart-mof ransportation. Included in your agenda is a copy of the Frederick County Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan and a copy of the 1993-1994 Secondary Road Construction Budget. Staff asks that the Planning Commission review this information and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 FREDERICK COUNTY SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN MAJOR PROJECTS/NEW HARDSURFACE/INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION 1993 - 1994 Frederick County Transportation Committee (Recommendation for approval on September 14, 1992) Frederick County Planning Commission (Recommendation for approval on October 21, 1992) Adopted on November 12, 1992 by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvement projects. 1993 - 1994 SIX YEAR MAJOR PROJECT ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD -DAT 1 661 Rt. 672 Rt. 663 1053 1.92 miles ST/GA 07/93 2 656* Rt. 657 to Rt. 659 intersec 3916 1.01 miles SH/ST 07/95 3 628 Rt. 631 Rt. 732 1482 2.41 miles BC 12/95 4 621** Rt. 622 Rt. 1109 1808 1.38 miles BC 12/96 5 1 647 widen between Rts. 277 & 642 6723 2.08.miles OP UN/SH 6 608 Back Creek bridge 0.7E of 681 117 0.2 miles GA UN/SH 7 608 Rt, 50W Rt. 616 1201 2.83 miles BC UN/SH 8 659 widen from bridge to Rt. 7E 272 0.2 miles ST UN/SH 9 10 656 Towns widen between Rts. 655 & 657 2188 1.39 miles SH/ST UN/SH curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Stephens City UN/SH 11 Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Middletown UN/SH 12 642 Rt. 1031 Rt. 522S 2150 1.87 miles SH/OP UN/SH 13 664 Rt. 761 Rt. 660 1178 1.1 miles ST UN/SH 14 660 Rt. 664 Rt. 7E 1653 2.13 miles ST UN/SH 15 622 City of Winchester to Rt. 37 9299 1.03 miles BC UN/SH 16 600 1.07 miles N Rt. 600 to Rt. 684 608 1.93 miles GA UN/SH 17 659 Rt. 656 bridge 224 1.8 miles ST UN/SH 18 657 City of Winchester to Rt. 656 8141 1.6 miles SH UN/SH 19 739 Rt. 673 Rt. 522N 2490 1.66 miles GA UN/SH 20 636 Rt. 277 Rt. 642 429 1.6 miles OP/SH UN/SH 21 644 City of Winchester to Rt. 522S 4600 1.36 miles SH UN/SH 22 661 Rt. 11N Rt. 660 355 3.24 miles ST UN/SH 1993 - 1994 Road Improvement Plan Page 2- 1993 - 1994 SIX YEAR MAJOR PROJECT ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Continued) RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 23 622 Rt. 629 Rt. 37 4076 5.86 miles BC UN/SH 24 657 Rt. 656 to Clarke County 4383 2.07 miles ST UN/SH 25 641 Rt. 647 Rt. 277 1931 0.68 miles OP UN/SH 26 761 Rt. 11N Rt. 664 2778 1.13 miles ST UN/SH 27 659 Rt. 716 Rt. 656 5894 1.09 miles SH/ST UN/SH 28 636 Rt. 277 to 1.5 miles south (277) 481 1.5 miles OP UN/SH 29 621 Rt. 1109 Rt. 628 1398 0.57 miles BC UN/SH 30 600 Rt. 753 Rt. 614 919 1.8 miles BC UN/SH 31 655 Rt. 50E Rt. 656 2547 0.79 miles SH UN/SH 32 642 0.2 miles west Rt. 1070 to Rt. 1031 6355 0.9 miles OP/SH UN/SH 33 661 Rt. 663 Rt. 11 N 7097 1.21 miles ST/GA UN/SH 34 628 Rt. 621 to City of Winchester 3008 1.25 miles BC UN/SH 35 627 Interstate 81 to Route 11S 4580 0.49 miles OP UN/SH 36 704 Rt. 632 Rt. 683 215 4.11 miles BC UN/SH ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS: ADT - 1991 Average Daily Secondary Traffic Tabulation Counts. DIST - Distance of total improvement length in miles. MAGIS - Magisterial District in which road improvement will occur. AD.DAT - Scheduled Advertisement Date for road improvement project to begin. 656* - Improvements to Route 656 will include the intersection of Route 656 and Route 659, as well as the "S" curve leg of Route 656. 621 ** - Improvements to Route 621 will include drainage improvements south of Route 622 and the realignment of the "S" turn on Route 621. 1993 - 1994 Road Improvement Plan HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Page -3- Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non-hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvements are considered primarily by the average daily traffic count for these secondary roads. 1993 - 1994 SIX YEAR NEW HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 1 734 Rt.522N to 1.5 miles south (522) 85 1.55 miles GA 07/93 2 649 Rt. 648 Rt. 625 58 1.8 miles BC 07/94 3 636 Rt. 735 Rt. 640 83 1.1 miles OP 05/96 4 5 706 699 Rt. I IS to end of Rt. 706 0.5 to 0.7 miles south Rt. 694 59 142 0.35 miles - 0.2 BC GA 08/96 08/96 6 702 Rt. 703 to West Virginia line 124 0.8 utiles GA 08/97 7 701 Rt. 703 to West Virginia line 133 1.01 miles GA 04198 8 695 1.09 to 2.3 miles north Rt. 522 89 1.21 miles GA UN/SH 9 695 2.3 miles north Rt. 522 to WVA 89 0.9 miles GA UN/SH 10 692 Rt. 600 L Rt. 671 143 2.6 miles GA UN/SH 11 625 Rt. 624 1 Rt. 635 102 0.5 miles BC UN/SH 12 692 Rt. 671 to West Virginia line 58 0.7 miles GA UN/SH 13 14 633 696 Rt. 625 Rt. I IS Rt. 522N Rt. 694 106 84 1.4 miles 1.3 miles OP/BC GA UN/SH UN/SH 15 638 Rt. 625 Rt. 759 84 0.8 miles BC UN/SH 16 629 Rt.608 to 1.15 miles east Rt.622 139 3.05 miles BC UN/SH 17 636 Rt. 709 Rt. 735 49 0.6 miles OP UN/SH 18 811 Rt.671 to 0.45 miles north (671) 128 0.25 miles OP UN/SH 19 679 0.3 miles west Rt. 608 to 0.5 miles east Rt. 600 98 2.5 miles GA UN/SH 1993 - 1994 Road Improvement Plan 1993 - 1994 SIX YEAR NEW HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Continued) RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 20 734 addition of 1 mile 85 1 mile GA UN/SH 21 704 Rt. 683 to West Virginia line 126 3.3 miles BC UN/SH 22 676 0.83 mile south Rt.671 to Rt.677 86 0.87 miles GA UN/SH 23 644 Rt. 50E to Clarke County line 152 0.81 miles SH UN/SH 24 634 Rt. 635 Rt. 11S 135 0.25 miles OP UN/SH 25 733 Rt. 50W Rt. 707 80 1.3 miles BC TUN/SH NOTE: Route 777 is proposed to be hardsurfaced during the construction of Route 522 South if funds are available. If funds are not available, Route 777 will be included as a new hardsurface road improvement project. ABBREVIATIONS: ADT - 1991 Average Daily Secondary Traffic Tabulation Counts. DIST - Distance of total improvement length in miles. MAGIS - Magisterial District in which hardsurfacing will occur. AD.DAT - Scheduled Advertisement Date for hardsurface road improvement project to begin. 1993 - 1994 Road Improvement Plan INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION Page -5- 1993 - 1994 INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN =RANK ROUTE FROM TO DESCRIPTION MAGIS F/Y 1 659 At 0.3 miles SW of Rt7 (N side) bridge over Red Bud Run ST 93/94 2 622 Rt. 37 Rt. 620 150 lbs. cold mix BC 93/94 3 681 0.82 to 1.1 miles N of Rt. 685 overflow pipe (Brush Cr.) GA 93/94 4648 Rt.631 to 0.1 miles N of Rt.631 spot widen BC 93/94 5 681 Rt. 685 Rt. 690 spot widen & tree removal GA 93/94 6 604 0.1 mile N to 0.05 mile S Rt.714 relocate curve & intersec. BC 93/94 7 709 Rt.735 to 0.92 miles W Rt.735 widen surface OP U/S 8 627 West of Town of Middletown improve curve sight dist. OPEC U/S 9 631 Rt. 277 Rt. 628 165 lbs. S-5 OP/BC U/S 10 608 spot widen and tree removal along unpaved sections of Rt. 608 GA U/S 11 608 At 2.57 miles north of Rt. 600 bridge over Furnace Run BC U/S 12 701 Rt. 700 Rt.703 widen/improve shoulders GA U/S 13 603 Rt. 55 to 0.3 miles south (Rt. 55) relocate intersection BC U/S 14 739 Rt. 672 to West Virginia line 165 lbs. cold mix GA U/S 15 707 Rt. 50W Rt. 733 spot widening BC U/S 16 733 Rt. 50W Rt, 707 spot widening BC U/S ABBREVIATIONS: MAGIS - Magisterial District in which incidental construction project will occur. F/Y - Fiscal year in which incidental construction project will occur. \ F � ` J X993 -1994 NOR ROAD IMPROV MENTI �� j�/',� `err •�`.., � � :� - �>. t f' V • ,�'� y A i , J i ., `� ....fir _ °'•�� � � ...,w � �;y— ��c': 231 Y F��`*re.�. -.'� _ ��� '•. _ � l ',� - f � � � m � �•�r �,-•+., a ,1�-�� � � �- / � , l`�,.'_L1/'``tea - - - ^ �"° n` �•. � ` : �,` r = _?�.a=+i_�• ^ �✓/ ��.�Y - r �. �: 1, f� ! A% � � ��• Yai�a. i �y U 4 ,racsre+ PrP,.., r iu...•,.t �r., `��� �. / �� �I •ham �` � �• ��• �- 'o k 15� .;,-• '` �_ .' '�•1 � \.v--C -'• --:. � l: / �/� _r, " � sem„ i �'; :�s'r.— � 4�.��., — �'- r ��� � .• �:•".) �=-:� ``. a, �+-••� t '� w4.cml. { •tel � «. � 1 f .>rl/ .' r : ,,. �' � ^,; �poa ` �., i.�. � / r V ' „S�IONM. %b1tlST/ • ,s ,...... � �� .t tan • �� "� I `w=a,ij`� a.a,. ' -!wi«. / �• F :L r 1993 -1994 HARDSURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 2 ,, �� 1" moi• :. . �_�.1" `,�>\ A L Ml �, .,. ', ; v�� � �_ �. � ./ � -•;� `` •_ tib' �"�•� .•� C �� �...�"" `..�/�y�,•, Icy y•�Xf�_/ �/�/ •. - � 4 ��^,r,,, Y �_' ry � ter'" � ,( �� �T _ ...A 3•-p '4e `� •• , :Y� � ",� `+ r ` �a�✓//r J / ¢ •�-� ` ` _� � ._i'�+ ^ - �7 ems.. �— � .o�\�� �,a,'��/-•a^psJ' i��{S of ��... _., �•'" _ .au sn " � ✓ �~ y is J f .:r �; y + •1 " •-` \ `\. ��.� � `r � � • �� � ::ate 1 ..., � 1 � � � ""'�,V.,�,=' i `i �' + \\\'`-��� ��� T ��� /'/ r�� �.ahiiP.�.. h� �• _ ir: mac( �.:. -. r _: \ -� ^• " �, , _ „ ; � ...�; yr • _�� e �yy >�'� �, ..9 I, !'�� � ���/ .+ • � � ~.� y i <^M_ .. h � �� UY��?�'/� � %+-.`• II v �, r~` y'M 11L � r •/ ,,JJ P Mir • . — ':• Y"� '`✓ 3�' «.yam _L•' .. `�"„','a. .. ' 1 t� yly..aza+, rl �"•..` , tA/ "� -� _ � �? ,-"/ ro ` , : � _ ` _ t K (LJ r _ � ` , �A u c � + r } , .. .-"` /- / �u" 1hI �(�'�-I,r-?.:dl's �•, ....... SR-2(Rev. 4 - 89) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION BUDGET REGULAR CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATION UNPAVED ROAD ALLOCATION (33.1-23.1:1) NET FUNDS FOR DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION INCIDENTAL IMPROVEMENTS NUMBERED PROJECTS: REGULAR IMPROVEMENTS UNPAVED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL ALLOCATION Date of Board of Supervisors Approval of Annual Priority Program: July 14, 1993 'Date Printed: 07 -Jun -93 JULY 1, 1993 - JUNE 30, 1994 FREDERICK (34) COUNTY STAUNTON (68) DISTRICT PROJECTED FY 93-94 E . 2,084,784 379,341 S 2,464,125 S 560,000 1,524,784 379,341 S 2,464,125 SR -2A (Revised 4 - 89) SHEET 1 OF 4 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JULY 1, 1993 -JUNE 30, 1994 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM Frederick (34) COUNTY Staunton (68) DISTRICT DETAILS OF.CONSTRUCTION BUDGET DATE June 7, 1993 ------------------ ROUTE - PROJECT OR I LENGTH ------- - --------------------- ------------------------------------------ ....... '"-" ITEM -------------------------------- I ------------------------- ALLOCATION I REMARKS 8003 5601 I -- Traffic and Safety Services I I S 80,000 __ - State ------------------------ Forces.&Contract 8000 I 5603 -- I ----------------------------- Rural Addition --------------------------------------------- 5,000 I I State forces/Hired Equipment 8005 5604 -- Pipe Installation ----------------------------- 15,000 I State Forces I 8012 5605 -- ..- ------- Survey and Preliminary Engineering --------------- 45,000 II State Forces 8014 5606 1 Fertilization and Seeding 20,000 I State Forces I 8015 ---------------------------------------------------------9-----port--------------------I---- 5607 I ----------District Design Su-----------------------•----------------------•--------•--------------- I 55,000 State Forces I 0604 Gr t Spgs Rd 5300 0.15 Mi. Relocate Int. FR: 0.10 MN Rt 714 --------------------------••-------------- 35,000 Hired Equip' q P • .: 365 TO: 0.05 MS Rt 714 ------------- 0622 Cedar Ck Grd -------------- .5301 1.54 Mi. ------------------ Apply New Plant t Mi f..._..._.........---------------- 80 000 ...- Contract TC: 3203 FR: Rte 621 TO: Rte 620 ------------------------------------ 0648 Rabbit Road 5302 0.10 - Improve Intersection FR: Rte 631 ---•-----------=-------------•--------- 30 ,000 " '`"'""`"---=- Hired Equip: TC: 66 -------------------------------------- --------------------- TO: 0.10 MN Rte 631 ------------------------------------------- ------ - ----- SR -2A (Revised 39) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JULY 1, 1993 -JUNE 30, 1994 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Frederick (34) COUNTY'. SECONDARY SYSTEM Staunton (68) DISTRICT DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION BUDGET DATE June 7, 1993 ----------•---------------------•-------------------------- ROUTEI PROJECT OR -------------------- LENGTH ( DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION --•------------- REMARKS --------------------------------------------------------------------- I 06Mi Valley Mill Rd 6029 -- eOnee---------------------------------- Replace One Lane Concrete Bridge 110,000 ----------------•--------.- State Forces & Hired Equip. TC: 451 AT: 0.30 MSN Rte 7 - --------------------------------------------------------- 0681 ChInut Gry Rd 5303 0.28 =------------------------------------------------------•--------------- Install 3 Pipe Overflows 70,000 - Hired Equip./State Forces FR: 0.82 MN Rt 685 TC: 62 TO: 1.10 MN Rte 685 ---------------------------------------------------------------------=----------------------=---------=--=- 0681 Ch'nut Gry Rd 5304 2.70 Mi Spot Widen Various Locations 15,000 ----- State Forces ---------------- TC: 62 I I FR: Rte 685 TO: Rte 690 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------......... - - - - - - - I TOTAL INCIDENTAL IMPROVEMENTS E -560,000 h_cT2OF4 SR -2A (Revised 4 - 89) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JULY 1, 1993 '-JUNE 30, 1994 DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION Frederick (34) COUNTY SECONDARY SYSTEM Staunton (68) DISTRICT DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION BUDGET DATE June 7, 1993 SHEET 3 OF 4 ------------------------------ ROUTE I PROJECT OR ( LENGTH --------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION - ------------ �--.-------------9.999_ ITEM I I ALLOCATIONREMARKS ----------------------- 0661 FAS ---------- 034- 140, C502 --------- 2.20 Mi ----0.-------------------------------------------------------I----------------------------- FR: 11 MN Rte 663 ---------"__----____-_ Wel Pike T0: 0.05 MN Rte 686 Reconstruct Existing Road 954,143 Additional Financing Contract TC:C: 8 808 PRIORITY #1 Estimated Cost = Previous Allocation = 2,300,014 Federal Aid ------------------- PPMS #2734 Future Funds = 1,345,871 0 0656 ----- --- --- -- '----- ------------------------------------------ -----------------"""""'" 034-118, 1.04 Mi FR: Rte 65757 "'-'- " -------------- FAS C502 Rte 659 Additional Financing Greenwood Rd TC: 1300 Reconstruct Existing Road 535,641 Contract PRIORITY #2 Estimated Cost = Previous Allocation = 1,603,235 Federal Aid --------------------------------- PPMS #3890 Future Funds =. 71,894 995,700 0600 034-214, ------------------------------ 1.72 Mi 995_7_______ 9999_______ "_ ------------------------------ FAS Hayfield Rd C501 FR: 0.01 MNE Rte 50 TO: 1.07 MNE Rte 679 35,000 Additional Financing Contract TC: 516 Reconstruct Existing Road Estimated Cost = Previous Allocation = 1,421,982 1,386,982 federal Aid -'""-" " " -"-- -PPMS #8684 Future Funds = '----------- Project Completed ----------------------------------------- TOTAL REGULAR NUMBER PROJECTS $ 1,524,784 ----- f SR -2A (Revise . 89) .iEET 4 OF 4 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA JULY 1, 1993 -JUNE 30, 1994 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Frederick (34) COUNTY SECONDARY SYSTEM Staunton (68) DISTRICT DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION BUDGET DATE June 7, 1993 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ROUTE PROJECT OR LENGTH I DESCRIPTION ---------------------------------=---- ALLOCATION ---------- REMARKS ITEM ---------------------------------::-----•-------------------------------------------- 0734 034-P83 1.55 Mi FR: Rte. 522 -------------- ---------------=--------------- Non FAS Sleepy Crk. Rd N501 TO: 1,55 MS Rt. 522 Grade, drain, surface treat 155,607 Contract TC: 85 iority #1 (UNPAVED) Estimated Cost = Previous Allocation = 387,322 231,715 State funds Unpaved Road Funds ------•---------•-------------------------------------------------/------------------------------------------------------------------ PPMS #:3418 Future Funds = 0 0649 034-P22, 1.80 Mi FR: Rte 648 Non FAS Springdale Rd N501 TO: Rte 625 Grade, drain, surface treat 223,734 Contract TC: 58 Priority #2 (UNPAVED) Estimated Cost = Previous Allocation = 700,000 0 State Funds -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PPMS #11239 Future Funds = 476,266 Unpaved Road Funds ------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL UNPAVED NUMBERED PROJECTS 379,341 ------------------------ CONSTRUCTION GRAND TOTAL S 2,074,029 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 /665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert Watkins, Director SUBJECT: Virginia Growth Strategies Act DATE: June 17, 1993 In 1989, the Virginia General Assembly created the Commission on Population Growth and Development. This Commission was charged with studying and evaluating issues in relation to population change and changes in patterns of development. It was charged with addressing issues regarding economic vitality, environmental health, infrastructure improvements, and innovative and cooperative land management techniques. The Commission was charged with developing initiatives to ensure adequate planning, coordination, and sharing of information at all levels of government. It was charged to consider a statewide planning process and to report its findings to the General Assembly. Since its formation, the Commission has held public meetings around the Commonwealth, has conducted various studies and published reports, and has deliberated on a continuous basis. The Commission has identified various issues that it has determined to be important, including the following. - Issues: • Population growth and loss • Poverty and economic opportunity • Rural preservation • Inefficient patterns of development • Environmental impacts 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 • Protection of historic resources and open space • Cost of growth and the revenue gap • Revenue gap in central cities In response to its initial findings, the Commission has drafted proposed legislation known as the "Virginia Growth Strategies Act." The Act is intended to achieve the following goals: Goals: 1. Economic opportunity and improved quality of life 2. Sufficient infrastructure for development and redevelopment 3. Affordable housing 4. Economic development in rural areas by natural resource conservation 5. Environmental protection 6. Conserve and protect open space and natural areas 7. Protect natural, cultural and historic resources 8. Encouraging compact and efficient development patterns 9. Incentives for economic development and redevelopment 10. Ensuring and protecting water resources 11. Protecting public and private property interests 12. Incentives for local and regional projects to implement goals 13. Streamlining regulatory requirements 14. Coordination and consistency among the plans (local, regional, & state) The Act would propose to achieve these goals using methods including the following: 'friiiiiiiiiii:} ii::;i;ii:•ii:J:•�:ii �i:;Y:'8;}•./r �:: iiih �i� ii iii ii `• :f;•'•iiSi::i:::;r'::;;'::::::::':..'::•`::::'.22':.<::'::.5.<52ii:.:: �;i':•l.-fl%/':;.� nlv .. Methods: • Prepare and adopt a Virginia Growth Strategies Plan that would study existing conditions, assess infrastructure needs and costs, and coordinate all state programs with the goals. • A Virginia Strategic Planning Advisory Commission (VSPAC) would be formed with citizens, officials, and local governments represented to advise the Governor on the plan, guidelines, reviews, public participation, legislation,_ funding, and techniques. VSPAC would lead the planning effort with the Department of Planning and Budget. Agencies designated to participate would prepare their own plans that will be reviewed by VSPAC. • Local comprehensive plans would be submitted for review by Department of Planning and Budget. Reviewed for conformance with state plan and guidelines. Review mandatory. Conformance with state plan and guidelines not mandatory. Reviewed to determine if local plans implement state plan. Major amendments or permanent change to local plans submitted for review. • Grants and technical assistance for local planning. • Infrastructure matching grant program for localities with recognized plans. • State agencies shall comply with recognized local plans unless the Governor certifies otherwise. • Studies of Planning Districts and adjustments to boundaries. • Comprehensive plans shall implement state goals. • Submission of local plans to adjoining local governments before adoption. • Local capital improvements program required. • Zoning ordinance required. • Zoning ordinances shall implement state plan goals and comprehensive plan goals. • Membership in PDC mandatory. • PDC serves as raison and coordinator between Dept. of Planning and Budget and local governments. • Tax options for implementation County Planning Staff Analysis: General: It is our opinion that the requirement for state agencies to undertake a coordinated, strategic planning process is highly desirable. It is also our opinion that increased requirements for CIF's, zoning, state agency compliance with local plans, submission of plans to adjoining jurisdictions, requirements that zoning implement plans, and mandatory PDC membership are highly desirable. Additional funding for planning and infrastructure improvements at the local level is also desirable and should only be provided for projects that implement state planning goals. Review of Local Plans: The staff is concerned about having a state agency review and certify local comprehensive plans. It is proposed that 15.1-466.1 be revised to require that the comprehensive plan shall be consistent with the state goals. It has been said that state recognition of local plans is not mandatory under the Act. In fact, if 15.1-466.1 is amended as proposed, the state recognition will become a legal test for the validity of the local plan. In the opinion of the staff, requiring that local plans address statewide goals is a good thing. However, it could be a negative step if it inhibits creative local planning processes that are citizen based. A criticism of state review of local plans in other states has been that it encourages a "cookie cutter" approach to local planning. We are concerned that review by state agencies who are not involved in the local communities could result in mediocre results that will not maximize the benefits of planning. Local planning is really about a process not a document. It is an evolutionary process. Local planners are typically involved in a long term educational process through which planning concepts are gradually refined as a consensus develops. An enlightened approach to state review that recognizes the uniqueness of various communities and the realities of modern community planning could be of benefit. However, we have heard little discussion about how such a review process would be designed and implemented. An alternate approach that has been discussed is to provide increased coordination of local plans through the Planning District Commissions. Under the Virginia Area Development Act, PDC's are required to prepare regional comprehensive plans. The Virginia Growth Strategies Act requires that these regional plans implement statewide goals. It would be best to have the PDC's review local plans to ensure that they conform with the regional plans and the statewide goals. The state agencies could then review the PDC plans to ensure that they are coordinated and implement the statewide goals. Planning Districts typically understand and are already involved in local planning in their regions. The PDC review would typically not be something that occurred at the end of a .........:::::.. complex process. Instead, it would be part of the local planning process throughout. Regional coordination of local plans could be a continuous and ongoing process. Virginia already has its own, unique regional planning structure. The statewide planning process should take full advantage of this system. This will require increased support for the Planning District Commissions. Using PDC's instead of a state agency to review local plans would provide better recognition of local priorities, prerogatives, creativity, flexibility and citizen involvement. New Local Planning Tools The original charges of the Growth Commission included finding alternative funding measures for infrastructure and proposing innovative land management techniques. A grant program for local planning assistance and a matching grant program for infrastructure are proposed. These are proposed to be funded through increased state sales and use taxes and gasoline taxes. The Virginia Growth Strategies Act places a great deal of new responsibility on local governments for statewide planning. Assurances are needed that additional financial support for these new responsibilities will actually be available. Improved planning for infrastructure needs should be addressed in detail throughout all levels of government. The burden for meeting these needs should be appropriately distributed. It is the opinion of the staff that the Act does not meet the charge of proposing innovative land management techniques. No new land management or growth management techniques are proposed. In this regard, the proposed act provides new responsibilities for local government without providing new tools. In Frederick County, impact fee enabling legislation would be of particular value. The staff believes that the financial burden of new facilities to support growth is our most difficult issue. Impact fees, to be paid at the time of building permit or subdivision, could be used to support school construction, emergency facilities and other capital needs. The staff believes, however, that it would not be fair to landowners or the development community to ask for this new tool as an addition to existing tools. Instead, it should be provided as a replacement for the highly flawed cash proffer approach. We believe that it would be appropriate to enable impact fees and to eliminate the acceptance of cash proffers. The cash proffers make the development process highly unpredictable for landowners, developers, and local governments. Property owners, who do not have the needed zoning, are put at a great disadvantage under the proffer system, even if their land is planned for development. In addition, the cash proffers are not a reliable source for paying for the marginal cost of new facilities to support new growth. A carefully crafted impact fee system would be much more equitable and effective, particularly if it replaced cash proffers. The Virginia Commission on Population Growth and Development would appreciate comments from the Planning Commission on this legislation. If you have comments, we will forward them to the Board of Supervisors.