PC 03-17-93 Meeting Agenda/ � Y
✓ AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
MARCH 17, 1993
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes of February 3, 1993 ............................. A
Z) Bimonthly and Monthly Reports ................................ B
3) Committee Reports ........................................ C
4) Citizen Comments .......................................... D
5) Discussion regarding the proposed redesign of Frederick Woods
Subdivision.
(Mr. Tierney) ............................................... E
6) 1993-1994 Planning and Development Work Program.
(Mr. Watkins) ........................................... o .. F
7) Discussion regarding the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
Enhancement Program (ISTEA).
(Mr. Wyatt) ............................................... G
8) Other.
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
February 3, 1993.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John
R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro
District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro
District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall
District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; and George L. Romine, Citizen at
Large.
ABSENT: Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; and Beverly
Sherwood, Board Liaison
Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; W. Wayne
Miller, Zoning Administrator; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; and Kris C. Tierney,
Deputy Planning Director.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes of January 6,
1993. Upon motion made by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of January
6, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
In conjunction with the Bimonthly Report, Mr. Wyatt stated that McDonald's
Corporation is proposing an addition to their Route 11 North restaurant. He said that the
addition will consist of a small, fenced -in McDonald's play area at the front of the store and an
additional drive-through. He said that the staff has required a site plan for this minor addition.
ON
Mr. Wyatt said that the staff has agreed to ask, on McDonald's behalf, that the staff be given
the authority to proceed with administrative approval, once all reviewing agencies have approved
the plan.
Chairman Golladay asked if the applicant was aware of the right-of-way through
the property- Mr. Wyatt replied that the applicant was aware of that fact.
Mr. DeHaven inquired if the applicant had ever purchased additional property
towards the northwest corner of their parcel. Mr. Wyatt said that the parcel survey boundary
indicated only one parcel. He said that the additional property was either consolidated or was
never purchased.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to allow the staff to administratively approve the site plan for
the McDonald's addition, after all the reviewing agencies have given their approvals.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Transportation Committee - 2/1/93 Mtg.
Mr. Thomas reported that the Transportation Committee discussed safety
improvements to Route 636 (Canterbury Road) between Routes 640 and 735. The Committee
also discussed revisions to the functional classifications for the road systems in Frederick County,
which is a national mandate. A proposal will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their
February 17 meeting.
Economic Development Commission
Mr. Romine updated the Commission on the activities of the Local Industries
Committee, which is made up of a number of retired businessmen who have had substantial
positions in their former companies. He said that the job of this Committee over the past year
has been to contact local industries and discern what their problems and/or needs are. Mr.
Romine said that this endeavor has been remarkably successful and well-received by local
industries.
Subdivision Application #001-93 of Henry Business Park by Kim Henry for four lots.
This property is located at the intersection of Baker Lane (Route 1200) and Fort Collier
Road and is identified by Parcel ID Numbers 54000OA000097F and 54000OA000097L in
the Stonewall District.
3
Action - Approved
Staff noted that the proposed subdivision of four lots was in conformance with
approved Master Development Plan #005-91, however, each individual lot would require a site
plan for development. It was noted that a deed of dedication would be required for the two
narrow strips on either side of Fort Collier Road that are to be used for public street purposes.
The staff also noted that stormwater management would be a major issue during the lot
development phase.
Mr. Miller said that these four lots border on Fort Collier Road and Baker Lane.
He brought the Commission's attention to the entrances on Fort Collier Road. Mr. Miller said
that Fort Collier Road is a pretty heavily traveled street. He said that the road has been named
"Fort Collier" from Berryville Avenue all the way around across Baker Lane to the intersection
of Brooke Road (by the jail) in the industrial park. Mr. Miller said that a portion of that road
was built by the developer of Huntington Meadows and all the paperwork has been submitted
to VDOT. He said that the staff is anticipating that section of Fort Collier to be in the State's
system by March 1.
Mr. Edward Dove, the President of Dove & Associates, was present to represent
Mr. Kim Henry, the owner/developer.
The Commissioners inquired if Fort Collier Road would be widened in the area
of the proposed lots. Mr. Dove replied that the original MDP did not call for additional right-of-
way,
ight-ofway, however, VDOT requested additional right-of-way on Fort Collier and Mr. Henry agreed
to dedicate the additional footage. Mr. Dove added that as each individual site plan is submitted,
the applicant will have to make the necessary right-of-way improvements at that time.
The Commissioners also inquired about the stormwater management plan for the
area. Mr. Dove said that each individual site plan will have to show stormwater management
and underground storage in pipes would most likely be the method used.
Considering that this whole area had not been looked at for comprehensive
stormwater management and considering how low this area was, the Commissioners felt that a
study on drainage potential should be done in this area before any lots were approved. They
decided to have the County Engineer, Ed Strawsnyder, take a look at the stormwater situation
before the final subdivision plats were signed.
Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve Subdivision Application #001-93 of Kim Henry for four lots in the Henry Business Park.
4
Conditional Use Permit #001-93 of John and Rachael Black for a cottage occupation for
catalog sales. This property is identified with Parcel ID #19000020000040 and is located
1.3 miles north of Gainesboro on Route 600 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Approved
Staff noted that the applicant has represented this application to be catalog sales
for Amsoil (a synthetic lubricating oil) from a newly constructed accessory building. The
applicant has indicated that the only traffic generated will be occasional delivery vehicles that
might be expected at most rural residential locations. The staff felt that if the business was
operated within the bounds presented by the applicant, it should have no noticeable impact on
the general character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Rachael Black was present to answer questions from the Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked if there would be storage on the site. Mrs. Black replied that
when an order is taken from a customer, the product is shipped from the supplier, not from the
Black's residence. The only oil stored at the Black's residence would be for their own personal
vehicles (12-14 classic, antique, sports).
Chairman Golladay called for anyone wishing to speak either in favor or
opposition to this conditional use permit and the following persons came forward to speak in
opposition:
Mr. Nathaniel Smith said that he was the original developer of Pond View
subdivision and presented a list of deed covenants. Mr. Smith felt that a catalog business
conducted from an office was not permitted under the subdivision's deed covenants.
Mr. Joseph Curley, adjoining property owner, said that steel buildings were
prohibited by the private deed covenants. He also felt that the business would devalue properties
within Pond View subdivision.
The Commissioners inquired if the building was newly constructed for the purpose
of an office facility for the proposed business. Mrs. Black said that the building was constructed
to store their personal vehicles, however, they felt it would be a good tax "write-off" to put a
business there. The Commission also wanted to know if Mr. Black would be working on or
restoring vehicles on the property. Mrs. Black replied that all of their vehicles are in mint
condition and are a part of their own private collection.
The Planning Commission advised that they would not become involved in deed
covenants since they are private and civil matters between the developer and the property owners.
The stated purpose of the Commission was to determine if the proposed CUP would impact the
E
adjoining property owners. Their decision was that the proposed use (catalog sales, no traffic)
as presented would not impinge on the adjoining properties.
Upon motion made by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve
Conditional Use Permit #001-93 of John and Rachael Black for a cottage occupation for catalog
sales`with the following condition:
1. Any expansion of the business or facilities used to conduct this business will require a
new conditional use permit.
The vote on this CUP was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE) Golladay, Carper, Shenk, Thomas, Wilson, Marker, Romine, Light
NO: DeHaven
ADJOURNED TO A WORKSESSION
At 8:05 p.m., the Commission decided to adjourn to a worksession to discuss
proposed amendments to Chapter 144, the Subdivision Ordinance, and Chapter 165, Zoning
Ordinance.
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: March 5, 1993
(1) Rezonings Pending: dates are submittal dates
Twin Lakes
4/04/90 (Shaw) (RA to B2/RP)
(2) Rezonings Approved: (dates are BOS meeting dates)
None
(3) Rezonings Denied: (dates are BOS meeting dates)
None
(4) Conditional Use Permits Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Ryland Hames
01/14/93 Opeq Off Premise Sign
(5) conditional Use Permits Approved: (dates are approval dates)
John & Rachael Black 02/24/93 Gain Cottage Occupation
Catalog Sales
(6) Site Plans Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Wheatlands Wastewater
Fac. 9/12/89
Opeq
Trmt.facil
Grace Brethren Church
6/08/90
Shaw
Church
Flex Tech
10/25/90
Ston
Lgt. Industrial
Hampton Chase
12/18/90
Ston
S.F. & T.H.
Lake Centre
05/15/91
Shaw
Townhouses
Red Star Express Lines
05/24/91
Ston
Whse. Addition
Freeton
04/27/92
Opeq
Townhouses
Salvation Army
12/03/92
Ston
Ofc/Housing
2
Glaize Comnonents 01/21/93 Shaw Mfg. Plant
(7) Site Plans Approved:_(dates are approval dates)
valley Proteins (rev) 02/25/93 Gain Industrial
Boyer Landscaping 02/26/93 Shaw Landscaping Business
Greenbay Pkg. 03/05/93 Ston Mfg.
(8) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
None
(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
Senseny Glen
12/04/91
Shawnee
Freeton
05/20/92
Opequon
Henry Business Park
02/03/93
Stonewall
(10) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
James R. Wilkins III 11/02/92 Shawnee
Prince Frederick Business Park 01/19/93 Shawnee
(11) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval
dates
Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 Back Creek
Hampton Chase (revised) 05/27/92 Stonewall
(12) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin. approval dates),
None
(13) Board of Zoning Appeals Avolications Pending: (submit. dates)
David Walker 01/21/93 Shaw 15t rear/house
Trademark Ent. Inc. 02/19/93 Ston 10' front/house
David Smith 02/19/93 Ston 30' road eff. buffer
and setbacks from driveways
3
(14) BZA Applications Approved: (aroval dates)
None
(15) BZA APRlications Denied:
None
(16) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER
None
200
150
100
50
0
MONTHLY REPORT
Zoning
Comparison of
nuary 1993
2 a 1141
O
January 1992
Total
1/91
�
H O
0 vi
yy
U
M
to
o
b
Ot
W
p
mulative Monthly Totals
Total
January 1992
Total
1/91
1/90
1/89
1 gg
1/87
E+
H
H
1
H
H
oHN
H
H
1. Multi-family0
2. Single-family
Z
12
0
21
0
133
120
Ef
L194
120
Ei
U
o
0
6
6
dwellings
U
F4 a
O
U
U
U
U
U
0
3. Mobile homes
7
7
6
4
U
TOTAL PERMITS AP-
PROVED FOR ZONING
1
1. Multi-family0
2. Single-family
17
12
0
21
0
133
120
11
0
L194
120
13
0
lI
0
0
0
6
6
dwellings
3. Mobile homes
7
7
6
4
3
27
2
3
1
13
6
25
New Units
- Replacements
4. Industrial
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
3
4
0
4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
f:0
1
0
2
1
0 0 0 0 1
1
0
5. Commercial
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6. Miscellaneous
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
5*
15
8
5
43
11
7
8
10
6
42
PERMITS - County
Total
2
117
39 1 32_1 37 1 25 131
lyy l 1992 1993
COUNTY TOTAL ----- RESIDENTIAL --•--•
"' COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
MONTHLY REPORT Comparison of Accumulative Monthly TotAls
Zoning JANUARY—.-_ FEBRUARY 1993 Total JANUARY - FEBRUARY 1992 Total 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987
\ HO Wp H W WH�EH H E4
OO O�`
HH
En Z Er, HC
pOt U >4 >40
H FC H O W
W
C7 v1 Pq W O O H FC W 0
U0 U U U U OU
TOTAI, PERMITS AP-
U
PROVED FOR ZONING 34 29 35 148 43 289 37 21 18 36 '41 153 171 261 220 190 207
I. Multi -family
2. Single-family 0 p 0 120 19 139 0 0 0
0 14 14 6 84 24 12 26-
dwellings
13 15 10 8 7 53 12 5 6• 20 11 54 40 67 93 66 86
3. Mobile Homes
1 3 0 1 5 10 0 2 1 0 2 5 3 18 20 11 18
- New Units 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 2
- Replacements 1 2 0 1 3 2 9 E�5
E�4
g
7 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 9 -10
4. Industrial
0 0 0 ;�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0
5. Commercial 2 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20 1
6. Miscellaneous 32 3
20 11 25 18 12 86 25 14 11 16 14 801109 72 80 69 74
PERMITS - County Total
200
1.50
100
5d
0
y 0 V 1989`.' 1990 1991 1992
1993
COUNTY TOTAL" ------RESIDENTIAL — • - • --
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
MONTHLY REPORT
'
Comparison
of Individual
Monthly
Totals
Zoning
FEBRUARY
1993
Total
FEBRUARY
1992
Toaatal
/aa91
2 0
2189
_21$$
`
:,�
H
H
H
__zLl
H
H
W
EH
pO
N
EH
H
H
E4
H
0
p
H
a
U
W
Z
F4
►►
o
a�EA
W
z
H
E+
U
cn
m
in
O
U
Uig
w
o
UU
U
U
v
U
TO'T'AL PERMITS AP-
PROVED FOR ZONING
17
17
14
1
22
78
1
1 24
I. Multi -family
0
0
0
0
19
19
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0.
14
12
C
2. Single-family
dwellings
6
8
4
4
4
26
10
2
5
7
5
29
29
37
53
42
59
3. Mobile homes
- New Units
1
0
3
1
0
0
2
6
0
1
1
0
1
3
2
8
12
8
9
0
0
20
0
1
- Replacements
1
2
0
0
0
3
0
1
U
0
1
4. Industrial
0
1
0
0
5. Commercial
0
0
-0
1
0
1
0
0
6
1
21
0
6. Miscellaneous
10
6
10
10
7
43
14
7
3
6
8
38
70
40-
43
44
43
risi(_Ml•rS - County Total
200
150 `_�_ _...•.__
100
50 --
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
COUNTY TOTAL RESIDENTIAL -- — COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #28
1. Corridor Appearance
Ron Lilley presented an approach to illustrating the
recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce Corridor Appearance Task
Force to the Task Force, which was well-received.
2. Stephens CityfFrederick County Joint Planning Committee
The staff is continuing to develop base information for
this group to consider for land use planning. The staff is also
continuing to work on mutually -agreeable boundary adjustments with
Stephens City.
3. House Numberingl911 System
Staff is continuing with the update of the House
Numbering Project through the use of ACAD11, dBase IV, and general
inquiry.
4. Plan Reviews
Lanny Bise conducted the following plan reviews:
Met with Allen Ebert regarding site plan requirements for
an addition at Weber's Nursery.
Evan Wyatt conducted the following plan reviews:
On February 19, reviewed revisions to the Prince
Frederick Master Development Plan. This site is located on the
south side of'Route 50, east of Winchester, behind G. W. Motors.
On February 25, met with Richard Wilkins and Bob Watkins
to discuss traffic impacts related to proposed multi -family
residential development along Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659).
5. Transportation Planning
Bob Watkins and Evan Wyatt met with the Planning District
staff and local planning staff to discuss the new regional
transportation planning program on February 22.
6. Alternate Wastewater Treatment Methods
Kris Tierney met witlL County Engineer, Ed Strawsnyder,
and the PDC's Rob Kinsley to work out details of the proposed
contract with the consultant selected to perform the study of
alternate wastewater treatment methods for rural community centers.
7. Coventry Courts Subdivision
Kris Tierney met with Mrs. Longerbeam to discuss the
Coventry Courts subdivision, located on the west side of Greenwood
Road. This subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission in
1992, but has not yet received administrative approval. Mrs.
Longerbeam had concerns and questions over bonding for the
construction of a road connection to Abrams Point, which is
required prior to approval of final plats. This issue may be
brought before the Planning Commission and ultimately, the Board.
8. School Bus Routes Booklets
On February 26, Evan Wyatt produced various residential
maps for the Frederick County School Board. These maps will be
used in the comprehensive update of the school bus route booklets.
9. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee
Lanny Bise is compiling data concerning parcels with rail
frontage for the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee.
10. Capital Facilities Im act Model
Lanny Bise is continuing to run hypothetical rezoning
scenarios on the Capital Facilities Impact Model for comparison
purposes.
11. Real Estate Market Study
Lanny Bise is continuing with data gathering for the Real
Estate Market Study.
12. GIS Software
On February 18, Evan Wyatt met with representatives of
Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke, and Radford University to
obtain information regarding various GIS software and electrostatic
plotters.
13. Battlefield Group
Bob Watkins met with the Planning District's Battlefield
Group.
14. Zoning Violations
Lanny Bise had two General District Court appearances on
February 23.
15. Professional Development
Mark Lemasters conducted two days of training on the
automated mapping system (ACAD) for several staff members. The
training consisted of basic operation as well as finding and
editing existing computer mapping information.
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Direct9��Z7
Re: Resubdivision of Frederick Woods
Date: March 5, 1993
As the Commission members are aware, the County is attempting to complete all the
necessary steps to enable the realignment of Route 642 from just west of its intersection
with Route 647 through to Route 522. The Frederick Woods development is one of the
properties affected by this realignment.
The attached sketch shows the area of Frederick Woods that will be affected by the
relocation. The owners are requesting approval of a slight revision to the approved plat that
results in the loss of two lots. The cul-de-sac serving the original lots 12-16 would be
eliminated and redesigned lots 12, 13, and 14 would replace the cul-de-sac and the original
five lots fronting it.
The purpose of this redesign is to minimize the loss of lots within the Frederick Woods
development while still enabling the proposed realignment of Route 642. Mr. Bushman has
verbally agreed to accept the narrow turn radius of the resulting road, even though this does
not meet normal VDOT standards.
The staff would like to suggest that if the Commission has no major concerns over this
proposal, that we be allowed to administratively approve the redivision once plats have been
prepared and relevant agencies have approved the redesign.
KCT/slk
attachment
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
QURT 1
0 12
4 5 58.12' 300.18' R 325.19' 7 20.2�.00o S. o
O x$255' ;t rn S 57.15'18„ E
59.45' o 0 125.00'
Lu
NIf? v rn. rn o 11
00 10,000 6
S 57'15'18" E
1n 7 o
M' O rn 125.00' N 8 2 f tp W o 125.00'
W 0 7 i 18-
5 W 87.6 n1 0 10 cr
O 4) Z 0 ,35 0 125.00' 1 SO 10.000 S F Q N
Co
CE LL' 10.000 s.F, $ 18 c� S 57.15'18'
a v s 57'15'18" E 10.000 s.F, ci j z 125.00'
v o 125.00' . N 57'15'18., W °J �' 0 -9,
0
/ 2 M I o J4 v o 125.00' ' - 10.00o
o Z a0 000 S.F. O 19 C'1 $
N 57'15'18" W Z Co 10,000 s.F. �' J 125.00'
125.00' N 57.15'18"W °) Z 8 v
.j� 125.OQ' 10.000 S.F. O 7
O
20 Co ^7
N 57'15'18" W
.(See Sheet125.00'
4 of?) 7
Min. Front Setback - 35' All Lots are Single Family Detached - Cluster.
(unless otherwise specified) All Lots are subject to a 10' Slope & Drainage
Min. Rear Setback = 25' Easement along all Rigl-ts-of-Way and a 10'
Min. Side Setback - 10' Utility Easement along all Property Lines.
P. DUANE �C
BROWN
N0, 1285
� J
LAND S13
\�
2
ro
IFIRIEVEIP3IIVE WOODSY SSIE(CINUH II
DATE: AUGUST 27,1992 SCALE:1"=100'
gilbert W. cliffor associates, inc. SHEET
F.Si— - L.nd PI.h°en of
:°)..Y°.. 1.° ° 5
hd�4li,i,), Vh)64 01 (1°)) ),I 1111 Wi.b.— Vkg— n- (I°)) ..1.)I).
S. R. 642 ► ' —
6$ 57'30" E
— -----
S88°03'351E 191.92' S
�
_9zo'11j1ATER Esu'T . c °. J o :272.85_
•--'
V
—10 �� QPEN SPACE
N21°6825'E
zo'WATER& \ g o 6.9266 Acres a
WALKWAY ESM T
90.83'
52.48'
S 34 4 N 68 03 3 i VV _ ¢ m 281.97'
?79' m"
160'89' 41.30
S5.%T 41 " W—
80.00' 160 15
p
O
80; °. 0 CP 10.001 s F a 1
W • 00 .W; 10.001 S.F. 0Q, 05
^1
o^ H 41. c t g 11
" 4 ° 10, " n a 267 S.F.
S55-17-412.07'
•E ^�
RESUBDIVISION OF FREDERICK WOODS'' 'AG
_
So��_ AREA SHOW IN SKETCH
Mo N
Af-11.8.0,00. � tR ESAfT v
.0 82 2
QURT 1
0 12
4 5 58.12' 300.18' R 325.19' 7 20.2�.00o S. o
O x$255' ;t rn S 57.15'18„ E
59.45' o 0 125.00'
Lu
NIf? v rn. rn o 11
00 10,000 6
S 57'15'18" E
1n 7 o
M' O rn 125.00' N 8 2 f tp W o 125.00'
W 0 7 i 18-
5 W 87.6 n1 0 10 cr
O 4) Z 0 ,35 0 125.00' 1 SO 10.000 S F Q N
Co
CE LL' 10.000 s.F, $ 18 c� S 57.15'18'
a v s 57'15'18" E 10.000 s.F, ci j z 125.00'
v o 125.00' . N 57'15'18., W °J �' 0 -9,
0
/ 2 M I o J4 v o 125.00' ' - 10.00o
o Z a0 000 S.F. O 19 C'1 $
N 57'15'18" W Z Co 10,000 s.F. �' J 125.00'
125.00' N 57.15'18"W °) Z 8 v
.j� 125.OQ' 10.000 S.F. O 7
O
20 Co ^7
N 57'15'18" W
.(See Sheet125.00'
4 of?) 7
Min. Front Setback - 35' All Lots are Single Family Detached - Cluster.
(unless otherwise specified) All Lots are subject to a 10' Slope & Drainage
Min. Rear Setback = 25' Easement along all Rigl-ts-of-Way and a 10'
Min. Side Setback - 10' Utility Easement along all Property Lines.
P. DUANE �C
BROWN
N0, 1285
� J
LAND S13
\�
2
ro
IFIRIEVEIP3IIVE WOODSY SSIE(CINUH II
DATE: AUGUST 27,1992 SCALE:1"=100'
gilbert W. cliffor associates, inc. SHEET
F.Si— - L.nd PI.h°en of
:°)..Y°.. 1.° ° 5
hd�4li,i,), Vh)64 01 (1°)) ),I 1111 Wi.b.— Vkg— n- (I°)) ..1.)I).
FrGder'i ck
Af rc1, 8, /T93
/�'�o v n Ta i r► rt s J Co v r I
1
F.
� I �
I COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director
SUBJECT: 1993-1994 Work Program
DATE: March 8, 1993
Attached is the proposed Work Program of the Department of Planning and Development
for the 1993-1994 fiscal year. We would appreciate any suggestions or changes you could
offer.
RWW/slk
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
1993-1994 WORK PROGRAM
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
1. DEPARTMENT GOALS
Activities and policies of the Planning Department are at least
partially determined by the policies adopted in the 1993
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contains an
Action Program that describes actions that should be undertaken to
implement the policies in the Plan. The Action Program is used as
the primary guide in the formulation of this work program. The
following are the goals, objectives and strategies for the Planning
Department for the 1993-1994 fiscal year:
Objective To maintain an up to date Comprehensive Plan that
is responsive to changing situations and current
needs.
Strategy Review the Comprehensive Plan annually. Make
revisions and refinements as needed. Develop
specialized, specific plans for certain geographic
or policy areas. Currently, concentration should
be placed on commercial corridors, rural community
centers, historic preservation, economic
development and housing issues. Transportation
plans will need to be updated as a result of the
Winchester Area Transportation Study and the Route
37 Study.
Objective To develop and maintain an adequate information
system to monitor development and provide
information to support planning decisions.
Strategy Install and maintain a geographic information
system which uses mapping, house numbering, real
estate assessment, building permit and other
information to create a map -based information
system. Use the system to evaluate the impacts of
development, to understand development trends and
to support policy decisions.
objective Develop and maintain specific plans for community
facilities.
Strategy Improve coordination of needs assessment and
1
projection methods for community facilities.
Develop consensus on long range facilities needs
and approaches. Maintain and improve capital
improvements plan.
GOAL:
T4 a nzt ate a :ions i4 put p;� azzn ng o� .. es ... ntc ff +
Objective To provide and maintain effective development
regulations.
Strategy Review development regulations on a regular basis
to ensure that they achieve the policies intended.
Special emphasis should be placed on planned, large
scale development, commercial corridor appearance,
affordable housing incentives, and coordination
with regulations of the City of Winchester.
Objective To maintain and improve plans for improving roads
in the County.
Strategy Coordinate road improvement plans with the
Winchester Area Transportation Study. Actively
pursue improved funding for local road projects.
Objective Implement and improve methods to preserve key
historic sites that can be used to support tourism.
Strategy Based on specific plans, implement methods that
emphasize cooperation with land owners.
Objective Ensure that new development adequately provides for
the cost of new infrastructure needs.
Strategy Maintain a trained and experienced planning staff
that can creatively address problems as they arise.
Maintain sufficient staff capacity to handle such
problems in the context of a full work program.
2
Objective Improve the quality and presentation of information
provided.
Strategy Maintain an atmosphere and philosophy of customer
service in the Department. Participate in the
creation of a county -wide customer service system.
Produce easy-to-use literature explaining policies
and regulations.
Objective Involve the public early in planning and policy
development. Don't wait until policies are
developed to involve the public.
Strategy Hold regular public events that fully involve the
public in the discussion of issues. Provide clear
and interesting information on issues to the
public. Involve more citizens in Planning
commission committees.
II. THE 1993-94 PROGRAM
A. ADMINISTRATION - Administrative tasks will include the
following:
1. Violations and Complaints.
2. Requests for Information.
3. Support to Three Boards, One Commission, and
Approximately Seven Committees (Ten to fifteen agendas
3
per month).
4. Coordination with Agencies - The staff will coordinate
policy development and decision-making with federal,
state, regional and local agencies.
5. Record Keeping and Administrative Improvements - The
staff will continue to work on improvements to record
keeping and administrative procedures. Implementation of
a Geographic Information System will provide an important
tool for these improvements.
6. Capital Facilities Impact Model - Substantial efforts
will be required to maintain and use the impact model.
B. MAPPING, HOUSE -NUMBERING AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEM - Substantial additional work will be required to
maintain the house -numbering system. A major effort will
be underway to implement the Geographic Information
System Plan. Initial efforts will involve the
establishment of a core system in the Planning
Department. Information currently in existence in
various departments will be combined with the existing
base map to create the initial database. Emphasis will
be on set up, training, data conversion and the updating
of existing information. The next efforts will involve
providing direct access to the GIS to various departments
and incorporating new types of information. The system
will improve operations and the quality of information
available to decision makers.
C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - Increased levels of development
applications are expected over the number occurring
during the past several years. The staff will continue
to review the following types of development proposals:
Rezonings
Conditional Use Permits
Master Development Plans
Site Plans
Subdivisions
Variances
Land Disturbance Permits
Building Permits
The staff will continue to work to improve these
development review procedures.
D. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - The Comprehensive Plans and
Programs Subcommittee will review the Comprehensive Plan
following the annual review process. The comprehensive
planning work items will be as follows:
4
1. Rural Community Centers - Work will continue on
updating and implementing community center policies in
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Corridor and Interchange Plans - Work will continue on
the development of small area plans for the Route 50
East, Route 7 East and Route 11 South corridors and
interchange areas. Work will also continue in planning
for rail corridors. The plans will be used to address
economic development, land use, appearance, traffic and
other issues. Property owners in these areas will need
to be involved in the process.
3. Housing Issues - The 2020 Report recommends the
preparation of a comprehensive housing plan for the City
and County. The Subcommittee will receive a report on
area housing conditions, trends, and issues from the
staff. Discussions with the City will be initiated on
proceeding with this recommendation and the preparation
of such a plan will begin as directed by the Planning
Commission. Special efforts will be directed at
examining incentives to encourage the inclusion of
affordable housing in new residential developments.
4. Stephens City - Planning coordination will continue
with the Town.
5. CIP Needs Assessment and Projection Methods -
Discussions will continue on the methods used to assess
the need for new capital facilities. Desired levels of
service will be studied. Methods are needed concerning
uniform projection methods to be used by various agencies
in the County. Such methods should be tied to the
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
6. Neighborhood Planning - The staff will continue to
assist the planning subcommittee of the Shawneeland
Sanitary District Advisory Committee in their efforts to
plan for the Shawneeland neighborhood. There is also a
need to develop better methods to define and plan for
neighborhoods and community centers. Such methods should
include substantial public involvement.
7. Eastern Road Plan - The eastern road plan will be
reviewed and revised based on the results of the
Winchester Area Transportation Study and the Route 37
Study.
8. Planned Developments - The possibility of requiring
large parcels in the Urban Development Area be developed
under the R-4, Planned Community, zoning district will be
studied.
5
E. ORDINANCE REVIEW - In addition to
ordinance review activities of
Regulations and Review Subcommittee
following:
routine requests,
the Development
will include the
1. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Review -
Ordinance requirements related to corridor
will be reviewed. Other regulations will be
reviewed and revised as necessary.
The Zoning
appearance
monitored,
2. Development Review - The Subcommittee will review
specific development issues in relation to particular
developments as needed.
F. TRANSPORTATION - Transportation planning work will
include the following:
1. Area Transportation Planning - Special efforts will
begin on incorporating, publicizing, and implementing the
road improvement plans that result from the Winchester
Area Transportation Study and the Route 37 Corridor
Location Study. There will be a need to continually work
with the Virginia Department of Transportation to ensure
that improvement projects are provided in a timely
fashion.
2. Transportation Committee - Routine, annual work will
continue with this committee of the Board of Supervisors.
3. Transportation Planning Committee - The staff will
provide support to this joint committee of the City and
County Planning Commissions.
4. Regional Transportation Planning- The staff will
participate in the new regional transportation planning
efforts that are underway in the Lord Fairfax Planning
District. These efforts will provide improved resources,
coordination and influence in transportation planning for
the region.
G. HISTORIC PRESERVATION - Staff will provide support to the
Historic Resources Advisory Board in their continued
efforts. The Historic Resources Advisory Board will take
the lead role in the following efforts:
Ensure that survey and other information is
available to decision makers, property owners and
the public in a useful form.
Increase public awareness of the historic resources
in the County.
L
Ensure that proper emphasis is given to historic
values in the development review process. Review
development proposals.
Continue the s-LLe recognition and plaque program.
Develop incentives to property owners for historic
preservation.
The staff will continue to work with the Lord Fairfax
Planning District on a plan to preserve a system of Civil
War sites to promote tourism.
I. OTHER
1. Capital Improvements Plan - The staff will work with
the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee to
maintain and improve the CIP.
2. Citizen Participation and Education - Continue to
improve public participation. Discuss with school
officials the possibility of involving government classes
and other students in planning activities. Find ways to
educate future citizens about planning issues.
7
1993-94 WORK PROGRAM SUMMARY
FREDERICK COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
8
PROJECTED
WORK PROGRAM ITEM:
COMPLETION DATE:
A. Administration
Violations and Complaints . . . . . . .
. . Ongoing
Requests for Information . . . . . . .
. . Ongoing
Agendas, Minutes, Budgets, Reports
Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Ongoing
Record Keeping Improvements . . . . . .
. . Ongoing
Impact Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Ongoing
B. House Numbering and Geographic Information
System
House Numbering . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Ongoing
Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Ongoing
Geographic Information System . . . . .
. . Ongoing
C. Development Review
Review of Plans and Proposals . . . . .
. . Ongoing
Evaluation of Review Procedures . . . . .
. Ongoing
D. Comprehensive Planning
Review of Comprehensive Plan . . . . . .
. Ongoing
Rural Community Centers . . . . . . . . .
. Ongoing
Corridor and Interchange Plans . . . . .
. Ongoing
Housing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Ongoing
Stephens City . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Ongoing
CIP Assessment and Projections . . . . .
. 1993-94
8
Eastern Road Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993-94
Planned Developments . . . . . . . . . . . 1993-94
E. Ordinance Review
Corridor Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993-94
Development and Ordinance Review . . . . . Ongoing
F. Transportation Planning
Area Transportation Planning . . . . . . . Ongoing
Transportation Committee . . . . . . . . . Ongoing
Transportation Planning Committee . . . . . Ongoing
Regional Transportation Planning . . . . . Ongoing
G. Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . Ongoing
H. Other
Capital Improvements Plan . . . . . . . . .
Citizen Participation and Education . . . .
Di
Ongoing
Ongoing
STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
1993-1994
* Lead Role
10
DEP.
ZONING
PLAN
PLAN
PLAN
MAP.
OFC.
CLERICAL
TASK
DIR
DIR.
ADMIN.
II
II
I
MGR.
MGR.
STAFF
Department
*
X
X
X
Management
Ord. Ad-
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
ministra-
tion
General
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Inquires
Violations
*
X
X
General
*
X
Correspon-
d ie
Minutes
X
X
X
X
*
X
Agendas
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
House
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
Numbers
Mapping
X
X
X
X
*
X
Graphics
X
X
X
X
X
*
x
Trans.
X
*
X
X
Committee
Rezoning
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
Review
* Lead Role
10
STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
1993-1994
* Lead Role
11
DEP.
ZONING
PLAN.
PLAN.
PLAN.
MAP.
OFC.
CLERICAL
TASK
DIR.
DIR
ADMIN
II
II
I
MGR.
MGR.
STAFF
CUP
*
X
X
X
X
Review
Masterplan
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
Review
Site Plan
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
Review
Subdivi-
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
sion Review
and Admin.
Permit
*
X
X
X
Review
BZA
X
*
X
X
Zoning
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
Ord.
Review
Develop.
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
Review
Subcomm.
Improve
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
Plan
Review
* Lead Role
11
STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
1993-1994
* Lead Role
12
DEP.
ZONING PLAN
PLAN
PLAN
MAP.
OFC.
CLERICAL
TASK DIR.
DIR.
ADMIN. II
II
I
MGR.
MGR.
STAFF
Comp. X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
Plan
Subcomm.
Improve
*
X
X
X
Violation
Procedures
Record X
X
X X
X
X
X
*
X
Keeping
Improvements
Maintain X
X
X
Impact
Model
Rr i X
X
X
*
X
X
X
Cc. .,unity
Centers
Neighbor- X
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
hood
Planning
Stephens X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
City
CIP X
*
X
X
Improvements
Housing X
X
X
*
X
X
X
Issues
* Lead Role
12
STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
1993-1994
DEP. ZONING PLAN. PLAN. PLAN. MAP. OFC, C=CAL
TASK DIR. DIR. ADMIN. II II I MGR. MGR. STAFF
Corridor
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
Plans
Corridor
X
X
X
*
X
X
Appearance
Road
X
X
*
X
X
Plans
Planned
X
*
X
X
X
Development
Historic
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
Resources
Database
X
X X
X
X
X
X
*
X
Management
GIS
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
Annual
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
Report
Comp.
X
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
Plan
Update
EDC
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
Support
Area
*
X
X
X
X
Trans
Plan
* Lead Role
13
STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES
1993-1994
DEP. ZONING PLAN. PLAN. PLAN. MAP. OFC � CLERICAL
TASK DIR. DIR. ADMIN. II II I MGR. MGR. STAFF
CIP X X X * X X
Trans. X * X X X X
Planning
Comm.
Public * X X X X X X X X
Assistance
* Lead Role
14
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: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Enhancement
Program Discussion
DATE: March 8, 1993
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has directed all state transportation
departments to adopt regulations for transportation system enhancements. The state
enhancement programs are one component of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA). ISTEA has several funding categories and programs that are
authorized over a six (6) year period. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides
$457.5 million dollars for primary, secondary and mass transit projects in urban and rural
areas. ISTEA requires states to set aside at least ten (10) percent of their share of STP
funds for enhancements.
Staff will present ISTEA: Shifting Gears, produced by the American Institute of Architects
(AIA). This ten (10) minute videotape provides an explanation of what is involved in the
ISTEA Enhancement Program, and how this program will assist municipalities. This
presentation is a first step in education of ISTEA and the Enhancement Program. The
Enhancement Program will have a direct impact on the Planning Commission in that
specific projects will be reviewed by the commission and recommended to the Board of
Supervisors. Staff is interested in committee comment regarding this issue.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
The federal Intermodal Sur -face Transportation Efficiencv
Act of 1991 provides new opportunities for activities that +
will enhance the nation's transportation system. This act
establishes the Federal Transportation enhancement Program,
in which great latitude is given for taking unique and
creative actions to integrate transportation into cur
communities and the natural environment.
Every effort is being made by the Virginia Department of
Transportation to reach all groups interested in working to
identify and implement transportation enhancement projects in
cur State. If you have a project in mind, or if you have
previously suggested a project which could qualify for this
federal funding, please take time to review this information
and complete a copy of the enclosed application. form. By
using this uniform format, all transportation enhancement
candidates will be given full and equal consideration.
The following information explains this new program and
the selection process we are using in Virginia. Please feel
free to make as many copies of the blank application form as
needed to describe each of your project candidates or to
share the form with others who may wish to request additional
transportation enhancement projects.
Thank you for your interest in the Ccmmonwealth's
transportation enhancement program.
Sincerely,
John G. Milliken
Secretary of Transportation
INTERMODAL SURFACE TRAIYSPORTATICN
EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA) OF 1991
VIRGINIA'S TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
OVERVI F"A
The IST_r. represents a new era in transportation
legislation. With this Act, Congress has provided the states
increased flexibility in managing their transportation
programs. The Act provides an impetus for all levels of
government and the private sector to cooperatively plan and
develop intermodal transportation systems which are tailored
to their needs. An especially innovative part of the ISTEA
directs funds toward specific types of transportation
enhancements. The program provides a means of stimulating
additional activities that go beyond the normal or historic
elements of a transportation improvement project.
Transportation enhancement activities must have a direct
relationship to the intermodal transportation system. The
intent is to more creatively integrate transportation
facilities into their surrounding communities and the natural
environment.
Transportation enhancements are activities or
improvements which increase the value or worth of a project
or make it more aesthetically pleasing. In other words, the
project is "enhanced" by doing something that is not a common
practice. Eligible transportation enhancement activities as
defined by Section 101(a) of Title 23 USC are:
1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and
bicycles
2. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or
historic sites
3. Scenic or historic highway programs
4. Landscaping and other scenic beautification
5. Historic preservation
6. Rehabilitation and operation of historic
transportation buildings, structures, or facilities
(including historic railroad facilities and canals)
Preservation of abancc:�:=_d railway corridors
( _._cludi_nc the ccnvers_cn and use thereof for
ped=striar. or bicycle grails) -
Cc-_rol and removal c= outdoor advertising
Arc`aeolocical planning and research
10. Mitigation of pollution due to highway run. -off
The FfiwA has determined that the above list is
exclusive. Cniy those activities listed are eligible for
transcortatic^ enhancement monies.
PROJECT SUBM-TTSSION
Enhancement projects may be initiated by any group or
individual, but need to be formally endorsed and submitted by
a local jurisdiction or public agency (see attached sample
resolution). Enhancement funds can be used by the Department
and other state agencies for eligible projects. If the
applicant decides to drop a project, the Department can
request reimbursement for all excenditures. Jurisdictions or
public agencies formally endorsing an en—ancement project
will be responsible for cost overruns. Thev will be
reimbursed fcr eligible costs after the project is
satisfactorily completed or on a periodic progress basis.
If an enhancement project is within Department right of
way, the Department will generally administer the project in
a normal manner and may provide technical and planning
assistance. If the project is not within Department right of
way, it may be administered by the jurisdiction endorsing the
project. Administering the project may include: rights of
way acquisition if required, environmental studies, approvals
by federal, state, and local agencies, advertising and
construction management. In either case, an agreement
between the Department and the local government or agency
will have to be developed and executed which will include all
applicable federal and state recuirements and standards.
Applicants will be expected to ensure that public
hearings are held on enhancement projects. Projects that are
within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area should
have appropriate MPO endorsement (see attached list of
jurisdictions) to the extent required. To submit a project
for consideration, please complete the enclosed application
form.
PROJECT FUNDING
Transportation enhancement projects will be financed up
to 80 percent STP funds and a minimum 20 percent local matcL.
The local match may come from public or private sources. if
the project is located within the Department's right of way,
consideration can be given by the Commonwealth Transportation
Board to allowing the usage of state highway allocations for
secondary, urban, and primary roads provided the project is
legally eligible for such state allocations.
PROJECT SELECTION
Final selection of projects will be done by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board working through its
Environmental Committee which will be supplemented by an
outside advisory committee.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/ASSISTANCE
For more information on this program, please contact Mr.
D. L. Eure, at (804)786-2918.
April 1 is the normal deadline for submittal of
projects; however, for calendar year 1993, the deadline has
been extended to July 1, 1993.
5