PC 05-19-93 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
MAY 19, 1993
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes of April 7, 1993 ................................ A
2) Bimonthly Report...........................................B
3) Committee Reports ........................................ C
4) Citizen Comments ............................ o ............. D
5) Master Development Plan #003-93 of Hillsdale Estates for 247 townhouses.
This property is located on the west side of Route 716, in the Shawnee
District.
(Mr. Tierney) ............................................... E
6) Discussion regarding proposed amendments to the Frederick County Code,
Article XX, Definitions.
(Mr. Wyatt)................................................F
7) Informal discussion with G. W. Clifford and Associates regarding proposed
revisions to the Hampton Chase Master Development Plan.
(Mr. Tierney) .............................................. G
-2-
8) Preapplication discussion with G. W. Clifford & Associates regarding a
proposed rezoning on the north side of Shawnee Drive for Dodson Pest
Control.
(Mr. Tierney) .............................................. H
9) Informal discussion with G. W. Clifford & Associates regarding a
proposed Master Development Plan for a portion of the Stonewall
Industrial Park.
(Mr. Miller) ............................................... I
10) Discussion regarding a proposed Comprehensive Stormwater Detention
Agreement between Frederick County and the Virginia Department
of Transportation.
(Mr. Miller) ............................................... J
11) 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
April 7, 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; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee
District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall
District; and Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison.
ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District; and
George L. Romine, Citizen at Large.
Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; W. Wayne
Miller, Zoning Administrator; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; Ronald A. Lilley,
Planner 11; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES - FEBRUARY 17, 1993 MEETING AND MARCH 3, 1993 MEETING
The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes of February 17,
1993. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light, the minutes of February
17, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented.
The Commission next considered the minutes of March 3, 1993. Upon motion
made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light, the minutes of March 3, 1993 were
unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Schenk Food Addition - Request for Administrative Approval Authority,
N
Mr. Wyatt said that the site plan is for a freezer and cooler addition to be located
on the northeastern side of the existing facility. The architects attended a meeting with the
Technical Review Committee and there were no major concerns. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff
feels comfortable approving the plan once the architects submit all the final materials. Due to
time constraints, the applicant has requested that the staff be allowed to administratively approve
the plan.
The Commissioners had no major concerns regarding the site plan and directed
the staff to proceed with administrative approval.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CP&PS)
Mrs. Copenhaver said that she received a letter from Wellington Jones, Director
for the Sanitation Authority, stating that President Clinton has proposed federal funding of local
infrastructure projects such as water and sewer lines to promote jobs. Mr. Jones sent a list of
projects currently being considered by the Sanitation Authority that would provide service to
existing residences and industrial/commercial land. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the Commission
should prioritize the projects in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and get back to Mr. Jones.
Sanitation Authority
Chairman Golladay said that he had a request from a resident on Route 636,
between Route 277 and the Forest Lakes mobile home park, for the Sanitation Authority to
consider running water between Route 277 and the trailer park. Both the trailer park and Route
277 have water, but not the area in between. Chairman Golladay asked Mrs. Copenhaver, in
her capacity as liaison, to check into the matter with the Sanitation Authority.
Transportation Committee - 4/5/93 Meeting
Mr. Evan Wyatt reported that the Transportation Committee discussed VDOT's
Revenue Sharing Program, which provides up to $500,000 per year for use on road projects.
Mr. Wyatt explained that the county is required to provide half of the funds for a one-to-one
match towards primary and secondary hardsurface projects.
Mr. Wyatt said that the Committee also discussed the Corridor H Project.
9
Winchester -Frederick County Joint Transportation Committee 3/29/93 Meeting
Mr. Ron Lilley reported that the Transportation Committee viewed an
informational video on ISTEA; discussed a few potential ISTEA projects that may be considered
for July; learned about the LFPDC's efforts to acquire a transportation planner on their staff to
serve this jurisdiction; received an update on the WAIS study; received a brief update on the
Route 37 East project; had a brief discussion on Corridor H; and finally, the City noted a few
proposed road extensions and alternatives that were useful for the County to be informed about.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use Permit Application #003-93 of Joseph C. Smith for the expansion of an
existing home for adults. This property is located one mile east of Winchester, on the
North side of Route 7, and is identified as Parcel #55B -A-14 in the Stonewall District_
Action - Approved
Mr. Wayne Miller stated that the Smiths are currently operating a 25 -bed adult
care facility under Conditional Use Permit #004-88. He said that the location of the proposed
additional operation is in an adjacent, existing single-family dwelling that they plan to convert
to meet all the requirements for establishing the proposed use of caring for Alzheimer patients.
Mr. Miller said that convalescent and nursing homes are permitted in the RP zone with a
conditional use permit. Mr. Miller suggested that a site plan be required to insure all issues
associated with this use are adequately addressed.
Ms. Mitzi Signor, daughter of Joseph and Juanita Smith, the applicants and
property owners, said that they are proposing a unit with a specialized environment and activity
program dedicated to the care of Alzheimer patients. Ms. Signor stated that they have no
problem meeting staff conditions.
Chairman Golladay called for anyone in the audience that wished to speak either
in favor or opposition to the CUP, but no one came forward.
The Commission had no problems with the application and upon motion by Mr.
DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approve Conditional Use Permit Application #003-93 of Joseph C. Smith for the
expansion of an existing home for adults in the Stonewall District with the following conditions:
4
All review agency comments will be addressed and complied with as required.
2. All federal, state, and local regulations applicable to adult care facilities will be complied
with.
3. A site plan will be submitted for approval.
Conditional Use Permit Application #004-93 of Charles and Bettye Violette for a cottage
occupation for an audio and video studio This property is located off Route 50 West on
Route 259 and is identified as Parcel #27 -A -15A in the Back Creek District.
Action - Approved
Mr. Ronald Lilley stated that the proposed use meets the criteria set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance for Cottage Occupations. He said that the applicant has stated that there
would not be any unusual level of vehicular traffic generated by this use. Mr. Lilley said that
there are no other residences nearby, so there is no apparent likelihood that this use would
disturb people in the general area.
Mr. Charles Violette, the owner/applicant, said that he plans to remodel his
existing three -car garage for this occupation. Mr. Violette said that he will have no problems
meeting the conditions recommended by the staff.
Chairman Golladay called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak either in
favor or opposition to the application, but no one came forward.
The Commission had no problems with the application and upon motion made by
Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Light,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approve Conditional Use Permit Application #004-93 of Charles and Bettye Violette
for a cottage occupation for an audio and video studio with the following conditions:
Adequate fire -fighting access to this structure must be maintained at all times.
2. If the scope of the business expands beyond what has been represented by the applicants,
a new Conditional Use Permit will be required.
Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article
11, Definitions, Article IV, Subdivision Review Procedures, Article V, Design Standards,
5
and Article VI, Plan Requirements. The proposed amendments pertain to definitions
(Article II), preliminary subdivision sketch plan requirements (Article IV), major rural
subdivision access (Article V), and subdivision platting requirements (Article VI).
Action - Approved
Mr. Evan Wyatt said that the DR&RS conducted a comprehensive review of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to address items of concern that the staff and Commission
has had since these ordinances were amended in February of 1990. He said that the proposed
subdivision amendments clarify the ordinance for administration purposes and deal with
definitions for minor and rural subdivisions, plat and plan requirements, and include one design
standard.
The Commissioners had no problems with the amendments and upon motion made
by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve the following amendments to Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, as presented by the
DR&RS, as follows:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
ARTICLE II, Definitions
SUBDIVISION, MAJOR RURAL - Any subdivision resulting in the cumulative total of four
(4) or more traditional five (5) acre lots, family division lots, agricultural lots, or rural
preservation lots from a single parcel in the RA Rural Area District.
SUBDIVISION, MINOR RURAL - Any subdivision resulting in the cumulative total of three
(3) or less traditional five (5) acre lots, family division lots, agricultural lots, or rural
preservation lots from a single parcel in the RA Rural Area District.
Z
ARTICLE IV, Subdivision Review Procedures
144-11. Preliminary sketches.
A preliminary sketch may be required for any subdivision that does not require a Master
Development Plan. Within the Rural Areas (RA) zone, a preliminary sketch shall be required
for any proposed subdivision which contains roads intended for dedication to the Virginia
Department of Transportation for state maintenances or rural preservation lots. Preliminary
sketch plans, complete with all materials required by section 144-35 of this chapter, shall be
submitted to the Subdivision Administrator for review and comment prior to preparation of final
plans.
ARTICLE V, Design Standards
144-31B(2). Major rural subdivisions. Access.
All roads serving lots within a major rural subdivision shall be built to the Tertiary Subdivision
Street Standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation and dedicated to Frederick County
for eventual acceptance into the state secondary road system.
ARTICLE VI, Plan Requirements
144-37Z. Final1p ats.
An indication of the portion of the allowable density from the parent tract, (as determined by
section 165-52, Permitted residential density; exception; of Chapter 165 of the Frederick County
Code) which is to be allocated to each parcel resulting from the subdivision.
144-37AA. Final flats
Notarized owners certification as required by section 15.1-477 of the Code of Virginia.
144-39A(8). Minor rural subdivisions
A statement indicating the portion of the allowable density of the parent tract, (as determined by
section 165-52, Permitted residential density; exception; of Chapter 165 of the Frederick County
Code) which is to be allocated to each parcel resulting from the subdivision.
7
144-39A(10). Minor rural subdivisions
Notarized owners certification as required by section 15.1-477 of the Code of Virginia.
Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article II,
Amendments; Article III, Conditional Use Permits; Article IV, Supplementary Use
Regulations; Article V, Rural Areas District; Article VII, Residential Planned Community
District; Article X, Business and Industrial Districts; and Article XX, Definitions. The
proposed amendments pertain to rezoning application procedures (Article II), Conditional
Use Permit conditions (Article II1), setback requirements, height limitations, accessory
dwellings, accessory uses, vehicle parking restrictions, sign permits, inoperable motor
vehicles, dimensional requirements (Article IV), alternative design standards for
residential planned communities (Article VII), Industrial launderers as a permitted use in
the M1, Light Industrial District (Article X), and definitions (Article XX).
Action - Approved with an Exception
Mr. Wyatt next presented the zoning amendments as proposed by the DR&RS and
noted that these amendments also help to clarify the ordinance for administrative purposes. He
said that under Article V (Rural Area) Districts, the DR&RS attempted to create consistency in
the setback requirements for different types of rural land divisions. Under Article VII
(Residential Planned Community) District, the DR&RS tried to create some flexibility in design
standards to encourage planned unit development, which they felt was an important type of
development to consider for future residential use.
Finally, Mr. Wyatt brought the Commission's attention to Article XX
(Definitions). Mr. Wyatt said that the staff met with Jay Cook, Assistant Commonwealth
Attorney, to review the proposed amendments. He said that Mr. Cook felt that all the proposed
amendments in Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, were fine; however, he expressed concerns
with two of the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165. He said that Mr. Cook felt
that the definitions of "inoperable vehicle" and "mobile home" should parallel language specified
in the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Jay Cook, the Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, was present to discuss the
definitions with the Commission. It was his concern that the proposed definitions may be
interpreted to be more restrictive than those in the Code of Virginia and may complicate matters
if the definitions are challenged in General District Court.
Mrs. Copenhaver moved for the adoption of the amendments to Chapter 165 with
the exception of the definitions under Article XX for "inoperable motor vehicle" and "mobile
home" and request that those two definitions go back to the Subcommittee for further study.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Shenk and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning,
Article II, Amendments; Article III, Conditional User Permits; Article IV, Supplementary Use
Regulations; Article V, Rural Areas District; Article VII, Residential Planned Community
District; Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts and Article XX, Definitions (with
the exception of the definition of "inoperable motor vehicle" and "mobile home"), as follows:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 165, ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
ARTICLE II, Amendments
165-9A Applications.
Petitions for changes in zoning district boundaries (rezonings) shall be filed with the Department
of Planning and Development. Such requests shall be on a standard form provided for this
purpose. Such petition shall include an adequate survey or other legal description of the land
area to be rezoned. Every application or reapplication shall be signed by the landowner and
applicant if the applicant is not the landowner. The Department of Planning and Development
may require that the application for rezoning be reviewed by various agencies concerned with
the use of the land.
165-91) Procedures.
As soon as a completed application and fees have been received, the Department of Planning and
Development shall advertise the application for a public hearing at the next available Planning
Commission meeting according to the requirements of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
ARTICLE III, Conditional Use Permits
165-16GG Conditions.
Cash contributions for road improvements or for planned facilities identified in the Frederick
M
County Capital Improvements Plan. REMOVE THIS CONDITION FROM ZONING
ORDINANCE
ARTICLE IV, Supplementary Use Regulations
165-23G Setback requirements (pg. 16528)
Fences, free-standing walls, and berms shall be exempt from the setback requirements.
ARTICLE IV, Supplementary Use Regulations (Continued)
165-24B(6) Hecht limitations: exceptions.
If any of the above exceptions exceed the height limitation of the proposed zoning district, the
structure shall be required to be setback the normal setback plus one foot for every foot over the
maximum allowed height of that zoning district.
165-26B(3) Accessory dwellings.
In no case shall a mobile home be allowed as an accessory dwelling in the RP Residential
Performance District, R4 Residential Planned Community District, and R5 Residential
Recreational Community District.
165-26E Accessory uses.
In no case shall a mobile home or temporary trailer be allowed as an accessory use, unless it is
used for temporary or permanent housing on a bona fide, operating farm.
165-27D Vehicle XALk
�mg restrictions.
No part of a tractor truck, tractor truck trailer, semitrailer, bus, or dump truck shall be parked
or stored within the RP Residential Performance District, the R5 Residential Recreational
Community District, or the MH 1 Mobile Home Community District. Any truck with a total
length of twenty-five (25) feet or greater shall not be parked or stored within the RP, R5, or
MH 1 Zoning Districts.
165-27E(7) Entrance requirements.
THIS SECTION HAS BEEN RENAMED ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS. IT IS
CURRENTLY NAMED DRIVEWAY ACCESS. NO LANGUAGE WITHIN THIS
SECTION HAS BEEN AMENDED.
10
165-30J Sign permits.
Before a sign may be constructed, reconstructed or altered, a sign permit shall be obtained from
the Frederick County Building Official.
165-301(l) Sign permits.
Commemorative plaques and historical markers shall be exempt from obtaining sign permits.
ARTICLE IV, Supplementary Use Regulations (Continued)
165-47C(2) Inoperative motor vehicles.
Inoperable motor vehicles permitted to be stored outside of a totally enclosed building shall be
completely screened from public roads or surrounding properties. Permitted screening shall
include opaque fences, opaque landscaping, or opaque natural vegetation.
ARTICLIE V, RA Rural Areas District
165-55 Setback requirements.
The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning
District.
165-55A Traditional five acre lots.
Setbacks from traditional five acre lots shall be set out below-
165-55A(l) Front setbacks.
The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure located on a traditional five acre
lot shall be sixty (60) feet from the property line or right-of-way of the street, road, or
ingress/egress easement.
165-55A(2) Side or rear setbacks.
The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall be determined by the
primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows:
11
ADJOINING LAND USE SETBACK (Side and Rear)
residential/vacant 50 feet
agricultural 100 feet
orchard 200 feet
ARTICLE V, Rural Area Districts (Continued)
165-55B Rural preservation lots.
The minimum setbacks from rural preservation lot lines which adjoin other rural preservation lots
shall be set out below. Side and rear setbacks from rural preservation lot lines which adjoin any
parcel other than another rural preservation lot shall be determined by section 165-55A(2) of this
chapter.
165-55B(1) Front setback.
The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure shall be sixty (60) feet from the
right-of-way of any existing state maintained road, and forty-five (45) feet from the right-of-way
of any existing private ingress/egress easement or state maintained road constructed to serve the
subdivision.
165-55B(2) Side setback.
No principal use or structure shall be located closer than fifteen (15) feet from any side lot line.
165-55B(3) Rear setback.
No principal use or structure shall be located closer than forty (40) feet from any rear lot line.
165-55C Existing structures.
The side or rear setbacks for any lot created around an existing use or structure, or any family
division lot shall be fifty (50) feet from all lot lines.
165-55D Accessory uses.
The minimum setback for any accessory use or structure shall be fifteen (15) feet from any side
or rear property line of a traditional five acre lot or any side or rear property line of a rural
preservation lot.
12
165-56(A) Minimum _width.
The minimum width for rural preservation lots, fronting on roads proposed for dedication shall
be two hundred (200) feet at the front setback, with the exception of lots fronting on the turn-
around of a cul-de-sac, which shall have a minimum width of one hundred (100) feet at the cul-
de-sac. The minimum width for all other lots shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet at the front
setback line.
ARTICLE VII, R4 Residential Planned Community District
165-72B(t) Alternative dimensional requirement plan.
An alternative dimensional plan may be included with the master development plan for the
development. This plan shall describe a system of dimensional requirements for all planned uses
in the development. When these dimensional requirements are approved, they shall constitute
enforceable amendments to this chapter, applying to the land included in the development, and
shall replace other dimensional requirements contained in this chapter. Such alternative
dimensional requirements shall be based on general concepts described by the plan submitted.
The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall only approve an alternative plan if the
plan meets all of the intentions of this chapter, conforms with policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan, and follows generally accepted good planning practices.
165-72G(1) Alternative buffer and screening plan.
An alternative plan for buffers and screening and the separation of uses may be included with
the master development plan for the development. This plan shall describe a specific system of
buffers, screening and use separation for all planned uses in the development. When these
dimensional requirements are approved, they shall constitute enforceable amendments to this
chapter applying to the land included in the development and shall replace other buffer and
screening requirements contained in this chapter. Such alternative requirements shall be based
on general concepts described by the plan submitted. The Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors shall only approve an alternative plan if the plan meets all of the intentions of this
chapter, conforms with policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and follows generally
accepted good planning practices. Buffer and screening requirements for the perimeter boundary
of the planned community shall not be included in the alternative buffer and screening plans.
165-72M(3) Phasing
A reasonable balance shall be maintained between residential and non-residential uses. The
phasing plan for the development shall include a reasonable portion of the non-residential uses
in all phases of the development.
13
ARTICLE X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
M-1 Allowed Uses kaIC
Industrial Launderers 7218
ARTICLE XX, Definitions
OPAQUE - Not transparent or translucent.
SEMITRAILER - Every vehicle of the trailer type so designed and used in conjunction with a
motor vehicle that some part of its own weight and that of its own load rests on or is carried by
another vehicle.
TRACTOR TRUCK - Every motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other
vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the load and weight of the
vehicle attached thereto.
TRACTOR TRUCK TRAILER - The portion of a tractor truck without motive power, designed
for carrying property or passengers wholly on its own structure.
TRUCK Every motor vehicle designed to transport property on its own structure independent
of any other vehicle and having a registered gross weight in excess of 7,500 pounds.
Discussion Regarding the Prince Frederick Office Park Master Development Plan located
in the Shawnee District.
Mr. Wyatt said that the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a
Preliminary Master Development for the Prince Frederick Office Park on March 3, 1993. Mr.
Wyatt said that the applicant has revised the plan to address all review agency comments and
concerns of the staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. Revisions to the
plan include:
1. Extension of the two cul-de-sacs to be built as close to the adjoining properties as
possible.
2. Provisions for an 80' right-of-way along the east/west access road within the boundaries
of the proposed office park.
14
3. Conceptual design to indicate ingress/egress from the proposed office park onto Route 50
East.
Mr. Whitney Wagner, with the Fort Collier Group and the Prince Frederick Group
(Core of Engineers site) was present to review several of the issues that were of concern when
the master plan was approved--stormwater management and the classification of roads.
ROAD CLASSIFICATION:
Mr. Wagner said that the site consisted of 92 acres, although 32 acres of the site
are not useable (steep slopes, flood plain, etc). He said that in terms of street classification,
there are four planned entrances to the park; however, they only have control over two of those --
the upper two that adjoin Route 50. Mr. Wagner said that the other two entrances depend on
Garbers and the Winchester Regional Airport. He said that if the trips are equally distributed
on those two entrances, capacity analysis indicates that a two-lane road is adequate, if additional
turn lanes are added at Route 50 access points. Mr. Wagner explained that they intend to build
a right turn lane, two left turn lanes, and an incoming lane (in essence, four lanes at Rt. 50).
He said that they will also provide a traffic light when needed. Mr. Wagner said that based on
3,000 TPD (the amount of trips a major collector will handle per day) per entrance, they would
be able to have approximately 700,000 square feet of office in R&D. He said that the
developers of this park would be willing to limit development to 700,000 square feet of office
R&D or any combination of uses that would limit the trips to 3,000 TPD. Mr. Wagner said that
in the event that an artery would need to be brought through, they would be willing to dedicate
an 80' right-of-way all the way along the two major roads, so that in the event a four -lane road
is needed, the right-of-way would be available.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
Mr. Wagner next proceeded to speak about the drainage calculations that were
made for the Route 50 pond located in front of Carpers Valley Golf Course. He said that the
total water shed contributing to the pond is 1,100 acres -460 acres of that is contributed by the
Sulphur Springs Run drainage area and 640 acres is contributed from the north side of Route 50,
coming south. He concluded that their park is 92 acres of the Sulphur Springs Run area and
contributes approximately 7.6% of the total water that goes through the Route 50 pond. Mr.
Wagner said that they are only required to retain the difference between the pre -development and
post -development runoff on their site. Mr. Wagner said that after discussions with the county's
engineer, Ed Strawsnyder, and the Planning Staff, he feels that a reasonable solution has been
reached. He said that the developers and land owners are willing to dedicate, fee simple, a
stormwater management location. Mr. Wagner said that until that facility is planned and built,
they will proceed to provide the typical stormwater management that has already been presented.
Mr. Wagner requested that the Planning Commission allow the staff to
administratively approve the site plan. He also asked that the Planning Commission recommend
15
approval of the amended master plan to the Board of Supervisors.
Chairman Golladay recalled a discussion some time ago about using the Carpers
Valley pond on Route 50 for stormwater management. Mr. Wagner replied that they had at one
time intended to enlarge the pond for the Corp of Engineers site, but the watershed did not work
well and too much vegetation would need to be disturbed.
Mrs. Sherwood recalled that Mr. Wagner had stated that other land owners might
opt into the regional stormwater management system. She asked if the intent was for the county
to ultimately take over the system. Mr. Wagner said that the County would have to build and
own the system, but it would be prorated among the landowners.
Mr. Light said that he had the same concern as he did during the first review of
this plan, and that was the lack of a second entrance. He felt a second entrance was needed in
the phasing process, either on Route 522 or to the airport road.
The Commissioners were in general agreement that the revisions to the master plan
were an improvement in the design of the overall project. A motion was made by Mr. Shenk
and seconded by Mr. Wilson to allow the staff to proceed with administrative approval of the
site plan. This motion was unanimously passed. A motion was next made by Mr. Marker and
seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver to recommend approval of the amended master development plan
to the Board of Supervisors. This motion was also unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
agree to allow the staff to proceed with administrative approval of the Prince Frederick Office
Park site plan and does also unanimously recommend approval of the amended master
development plan to the Board of Supervisors.
Discussion Regarding Truck or Freight Maintenance Facilities as an Allowed Use in the
M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District.
Mr. Wyatt said that the DR&RS discussed an application to allow truck or freight
maintenance facilities as a principal use in the M1 Zoning District on March 11, 1993. He said
that this type of facility is currently permitted, provided the use is accessory to a trucking
operation. Mr. Wyatt said that the EDC credits Frederick County's trucking operations as a real
strength in attracting distribution operations, however, the EDC and several persons involved in
industrial operations see the separation of truck/freight maintenance facilities and distribution
operations as a disadvantage.
Mr. Wyatt said that the DR&RS believed that this type of operation should be
permitted in the M1 Zoning District with performance standards. He said that their greatest
concern was the potential for this type of operation to evolve into a truck stop. An Ad Hoc
16
Committee was formed consisting of June Wilmot, EDC Director; George Romine, Planning
Commission member; Douglas Toan, local industrial developer; Wayne Miller, Zoning
Administrator; and Evan Wyatt, Planner; to create performance standards for the proposal. Mr.
Wyatt presented those to the Commission.
Referring to the performance standards, Mr. DeHaven felt that allowing only one
storage tank of 10,000 gallons or less for diesel fuel would be a hardship because of the need
for both diesel and gasoline for fuel.
Mr. Douglas Toan, a local industrial developer/builder and member of the AdHoc
Committee, felt the amendment with the proposed performance standards would eliminate an
existing problem in industrial parks and actually make existing industries look and perform
better.
Mr. Todd Shenk said that his concern, should this become a separate allowed use,
is that there would be no control over the scope of the use. He said that right now, there is one
operation that serves "X" number of customers; however, if three or four come in, they will be
serving several different surrounding areas and customers would be coming in from outside the
industrial park. Mr. Shenk said at that point, the use may become the predominant use of that
industrial park.
The Commissioners next discussed whether there should be an approval process
for truck/freight maintenance facilities proposed for land which is zoned MI, but which is not
part of a master planned industrial park. It was the consensus of the Commission that this use
should only be permitted in industrial parks at this time.
The Commissioners felt that the staff could proceed to advertise the amendment
for the next available public hearing.
Preapplication Conference with G. W. Clifford & Associates Regarding a Preliminary
Master Development Plan for an Industrial Use on 66.43 Acres, Zoned M2, for the
Henkel Harris Company.
Mr. Charles Maddox, Engineer with G. W. Clifford & Associates, presented a
proposed master development plan for 66 acres of M2 -zoned land situated on the south side of
Shawnee Drive for the Henkel Harris Company. He said that this property is the site of the old
Capital Records building.
Mr. Maddox said one of the major reasons for presenting this master plan is that
this site has the potential to be subdivided in the future and the ordinance requires an approved
master development plan prior to subdivision of any industrially -zoned property.
17
Mr. Maddox noted that Wallichs Road may have to be relocated to accommodate
one of the possible subdivided sites. Mr_ Maddox also spoke about the extension of the sewer
line to accommodate future subdivision.
Discussion by the Commission centered on extension of the sewer line and traffic
concerns on Shawnee Drive.
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
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
Frederick County Planning
Commission
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Grace Brethren Church
SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report
Shaw
Church
DATE: May 6, 1993
10/25/90
Ston
(1)
Rezonings Pending: (dates are
submittal
dates)
S.F. & T.H.
Twin Lakes 4/04/90
(Shaw)
(RA to B2/RP)
(2)
Rezonings Approved: dates are
BOS meeting dates
Ston
None
Freeton
04/27/92
(3)
Rezonings Denied: (dates are BOS meeting
dates
12/03/92
None
Ofc/Housing
(4)
Conditional Use Permits Pending:
dates
are submittal dates
Ryland Homes 01/14/93
Opeq
Off Premise Sign
Paul C. Stacy 03/26/93
Ston
Eng. & Lawn Mower Rep.
(5)
Conditional_Use Permits Approved: (dates
are approval dates)
Joseph Smith 03/11/93
Ston
Adult Care Home
Charles & Bettye 03/17/93
BC
Cottage Occupation--
Violette
Audio/Video Studio
(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
Glaize Components
Fleet Maintenance
FCSA Water Tank
White Properties
2
01/21/93 Shaw
03/23/93 Stan
03/31/93 Shaw
04/22/93 Opeq
Mfg. Plant
Garage
Hydro Pillar
Storage Bldgs.
(7) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates)
None
(8) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
None
(9) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. A royal: (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)
Franklin Mobile Hm. Pk. 04/12/93
Hilldale Estates 04/16/93
Shawnee
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
James R. Wilkins 111 04/14/93 Shawnee
Prince Frederick Business Park 04/14/93 Shawnee
(12) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin. approval dates)
None
(13) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending:(submit:dates)
Monta Vista Associates for 04/23/93 Opeq 6" side/existing
AT & T Easy link addi ion
3
(14) BZA Applications Approved: a proval dates)
None
(15) BZA Applications Denied:
None
(16) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER
None
E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #32
1. Warrior Road
On Tuesday, April 27, Kris Tierney met with Chuck Maddox
of G. W. Clifford and Associates, Jim Doran, Director of Parks and
Recreation, and Billy Joe Tisinger, Attorney for JASBO, to discuss
the proposed transfer of approximately five acres from JASBO to the
County. This acreage would be offered as compensation for the
roughly four acres needed from Sherando Park in order to relocate
the section of Warrior Drive currently within Fredericktowne
Estates.
The JASBO parcel adjoins the northern edge of Sherando
Park. JASBO has agreed to dedicate the needed acreage to the
County as long as this acreage can be counted toward the required
open space that would be provided when the parent tract is
eventually developed. (The land is zoned RP).
2. Corridor Appearance
Ron Lilley has been working with a' -subcommittee of the
Chamber of Commerce Corridor Appearance Task Force to produce a
video of the final report of the task force, which is to be
presented to the Board within the next couple of months.
This subcommittee is considering possible application for
ISTEA funding for this enhancement project by July 1.
3. Corridor H
On April 29, Evan Wyatt attended a worksession with the
BOS, PC, and VDOT regarding the proposed Corridor H project.
4. Route 50 and Route 7 Corridors
Lanny Bise began work on Autocad maps for the Route 50
and Route 7 Corridors for the Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee.
5. Stephens City Joint Planning Group
This Committee discussed aspects of appearance for the
Route 11 Corridor and agreed that considering that corridor up to
Route 37 would provide a better planning viewpoint for the group.
Ron Lilley is continuing to develop base information for this group
to consider for land use planning.
Ron is also continuing to work on mutually -agreeable
boundary adjustments with Stephens City.
6. Plan Reviews and Site Inspections
Evan Wyatt conducted the following plan reviews and site
inspections:
On April 19, reviewed a site plan for the proposed White
Property Self -Service Storage Facilities. This property is located
on Stickley Drive (Rt. 1085) in the Opequon Magisterial District.
On April 20, conducted a site inspection at Albin Ridge
Storage.
On April 20, reviewed a Master Development Plan for the
proposed Franklin Mobile Home Park. This site is located off of
Route 7 (Berryville Pike) in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
On April 22, provided a letter to the Division of Public
and Intergovernmental Affairs regarding the proposed Environmental
Impact Analysis of the Army Corps of Engineers site.
On April 23, conducted a site inspection of the Southeast
Container addition. This site is located along Brooke Road in the
Fort Collier Industrial Park.
On April 27, reviewed a site plan for a new office
building for Paramount Pest Control.
On April 29, reviewed a preliminary site plan for the
Army Corps of Engineers facility. This site is located in the
Prince Frederick Office Park in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
On April 28, met with representatives of Parks and
Recreation to continue work on the Route 277 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan. This plan will be submitted for consideration of ISTEA
Enhancement Funds.
On April 22, attended a "start-up" meeting of the
Winchester -Frederick County Bicycle Advisory Committee.
8. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
The HRAB reviewed their direction and priorities based
upon the February joint worksession. It was agreed that education
efforts would be a high priority, with an effort to have a video
presentation of the Rural Landmarks Study presented at civic/social-
group meetings and possibly, in schools. Arrangements for
informing owners of highly significant properties of the benefits
of being on the State/National Registers are being pursued for late
summer/early fall.
The design contest for the historic plaque received 19
entries. The HRAB will be finalizing recommendations for winning
entries in May.
9. Battlefield Preservation
Bob Watkins met with representatives from Government
Finance Group, Inc. who are studying the potential financial
impacts of Battlefield Preservation for the National Park Service.
They will use Frederick County as a case study community for their
study.
Ron Lilley and Mark Lemasters produced a map of civil
war -related sites.
10. Professional Development
On April 27, Evan Wyatt conducted a Planning Seminar
regarding Regional Comprehensive Planning.
On April 19 and 20, Bob Watkins and Lanny Bise attended
the annual conference of the Virginia Chapter of the American
Planning Association. Battlefield preservation, zoning ordinances
for affordable housing, the proposed new Virginia Growth Strategies
Act, and other professional topics were discussed.
11. Lord Fairfax Planning District_ Commission
Bob Watkins attended the Lord Fairfax Planning District
Commission executive committee meeting.
Bob Watkins met with planners from the Lord Fairfax
Planning District Commission and local governments to work on the
regional transportation planning program.
12. Virginia Growth Strategies Act
Bob Watkins participated in a committee of the Virginia
Chapter of the American Planning Association working on a chapter
response to the draft Virginia Growth Strategies Act that has been
developed by the Virginia Commission on Population Growth.
13. Real Estate Market Study
Lanny Bise met with Winchester City Planning Director,
Tim Youmans; and EDC's Dan Malone to discuss building permit and
commuting data for the Real Estate Market Study.
14. Revised Application Packages
On April 21, Evan Wyatt met with the County Engineer and
the FCSA to discuss proposed amendments to the site plan and master
development plan application packages.
Ron Lilley revised the variance application and helped
with the revision to the subdivision application package.
15. Other
Lanny Bise finished the update of the Capital Facilities
Impact Model and is continuing with work on the Commuting Report.
Lanny also met with Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, Jay Cook, to
discuss several zoning violations that are facing criminal
prosecution.
P/C Review Date: 5/19/93
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
#003-93
HILLSDALE ESTATES
LOCATION: South of Route 659, on the west side of Route 716,
mile east of the City of Winchester
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 54-2-2
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance)
Land Use - Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential
Performance) - land use, vacant, residential and vocational school
PROPOSED USE: 247 Townhouses
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from
Robert B. Childress, dated April 8, 1993.
Fire Marshal: Posted fire lanes required at all hydrant
locations. Hydrant coverage as shown will not be adequate for
site plan approval. Chapter 10, Article 2-3-5.2 requires two
hydrants within 300' of each structure containing six or more
dwelling units. Add the following to construction notes on
site plan: "Burning of construction debris on site is not
permitted in Frederick Co. Access to building under
construction must be maintained at all times for emergency
vehicles. When construction begins post temporary street
signs and addresses. Additional fire safety comments will be
addressed at time of site plan submission.
Sanitation Authority-: First review - 7 items, correct and
2
resubmit.
County Engineer: See attached letter from Harvey E.
Strawsnyder to Tom Price, G. W. Clifford & Associates, dated
March 26, 1993.
Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space
requirements. All recreation areas must be accessible and
meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Absorbent
materials and buffer areas, meeting the United States Consumer
Products Safety Commission -Standards, must be provided under
and around all playground equipment.
Planning & Zoning:
Density
The maximum density permitted for townhouse developments is
eight units per acre, this plan falls just under that limit
with a density of 7.7 units per acre.
MDP Informational Requirements
Townhouse developments require 30% of the gross acreage to be
in dedicated open space (in this case 9.7 acres). This plan
indicates just over 10 acres which meets the requirement. The
plan does not show, however, the location of the openspace,
the location of steep slopes within the openspace (no more
than 500 of the openspace may be made up of lakes, ponds,
wetlands or steep slopes) or the location of the steep slopes
that will be disturbed.
The plan needs to state the number of units in each phase.
Setback Requirements
The Zoning Ordinance requires a fifty foot setback between the
rear of townhouses and the perimeter boundary of the property.
The units shown in Phase I do not meet this requirement nor do
the units shown at the northern edge of Phase IV or those at
the southern edge of Phase III.
Design Comments
Many of the units along the western and southern edges of
Phase III are situated within the steep slopes on the
property. This could be avoided with some redesign of the
development.
The entrances to Phases I and II could be lined up to avoid
the offset entrances resulting from the layout shown. The
Subdivision Ordinance requires that streets intersecting on
opposite sides of a street either be cross intersections or be
offset by at least 300 feet. Even though the entrance to
Phase I is not technically a street, these entrances are
offset by less than 150 feet.
It might be helpful to have shared stormwater management
facilities between this parcel and the Wilkins property just
to the north.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 5/19/93 PC MTG • Approval, with all
staff, review agency and Planning Commission comments being
adequately addressed.
COMMONWEALTH of VIR( INIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 278
RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN
COMMISSIONER April $ 1993 RESIDENT ENGINEER
TELE(703)984-4133
FAX (703) 984-9761
Mr. Tom Price Ref: Hillsdale Estates
C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Preliminary Master Development Plan
200 North Cameron Street Route 658
Winchester, VA 22601 Frederick County
Dear Tom:
We have reviewed the above referenced project's preliminary master development plan dated February,
1993. Overall we have no objections to the proposed development of the property. However, we do
offer the following general comments:
With the approximate 4,000± trips per day that this and the James R. Wilkins
Townhouse\Apartment development to the north will generate, Route 658 will need to be
improved to a minimum 40' wide curb and gutter typical section on a 60' right-of-way.
Close coordination will be necessary between yourself and Mr. Wilkins' designer to ensure
continuity of the vertical and horizontal alignment of Route 658 is maintained. In addition
to a right-of-way dedication to Frederick County across your client's property, adequate
right-of-way and drainage easements if needed will be required across the Rudolph, Loy
and Williams properties to accommodate the Route 658 improvements.
2. To provide minimum sight distance at the proposed street connections and commercial
entrances along Route 658, the proposed vertical alignment will need to be considered in
the Route 658 improvement plan.
3. All internal commercial entrances should be designed with curb and gutter.
4. The proposed 50' reduced road efficiency buffer may need to be adjusted to provide minimum
sight distance at the street intersections and commercial entrances.
Before making any final comments we will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations
and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual for review.
Should you have any questions concerning the above, please let me know.
Sincerely,
William H. Bushman
Trans. Resident Engineer
6
By: Robert B. Childress
Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior
RBC/rf
Enclosure
xc: Mr. Steve A. Melnikoff, Mr. Robert W. Watkins
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
Date: 23 April 1993
APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Frederick County
Virginia
Application # 003-3-�)
OWNERS NAME: Jasbo, Inc..Bowman Trucking & Fred L Glaize III
Box 6 Stephens City, Va. 22655
James L. Bowman & Fred L. Glaize III
(Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest)
APPLICANT/AGENT: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Inc.
Address: 200 N. Cameron St Winchester Va. 22601
Phone Number: (703) 667-2139
DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: same
Contact Name: Tom Price
APR 1 6153
PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHECKLIST
The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in
insuring that all required information is provided and to insure
that all information is available to allow review by the County.
This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with
the master development plan. All required items must be provided
on the master development plan.
Backaround Information:
1. Development's name: Hillsdale Estates
2. Location of property: South of Va. Rte. 659, West and
adjacent to Va. Rte. 716 1/2 mile east of City of Winchester
3. Total area of property: 32.322 Acres
4. Property ID #: 54-2-2
5. Property zoning and present use: RP (Vacant)
6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: RP (Vacant,
Townhouses Vocational School & Sin le Family)
7. Proposed Uses: Townhouses
8. Magisterial District: Shawnee
9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original_X_ Amended
General Information:
1. Have the following items been included?
North arrow
Yes—X—
o Disturbed
No
Scale
Yes—X_
No
Legend
Yes
0
No_X_
Boundary Survey
Yes—X—
0
No
Total Area
Yes—X—
0
No
Topography
Yes—X_
_1.12_
No
Project Title
Yes
_X_
No
Preparation and Revision Date
Yes_X_
No
Applicant Name
Yes—X—
No
2. Number of phases proposed? Five (5)
3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan?
Yes—X— No
4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated?
Yes—X— No
5 Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project
and all public roads within 2,000 feet.
Yes—X— No
6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes—X— No
7. Are environmental features clearly shown?
Yes—X_ No
8. Describe the following environmental features:
Total Area
o Disturbed
Area in
Open Space
Floodplains
0
0
0
Lakes and ponds
0
0
0
Natural retention areas
0
0
0
Steep slopes (15% +)
_4.78_
_1.12_
23%
Woodlands
7.10
1.63
23%
9. Are the following shown on the master development plan?
Street layout
Yes
_X_No
Entrances
Yes.
X_No
Parking areas
Yes
_X_No
Utilities (mains)
Yes_X_No
10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided?
Ye s_X_No
11. Have all historical structures been identified?
Yes No X
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?
247 Townhouses
2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in
each phase:
Open space acreage
Yes_X_No
Acreage in each housing type
Yes
Acreage in streets and right of ways
Yes_X_No
_X_No
Total acreage
Yes
Number of dwellings of each type
Yes
_X_No
X
No
3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common
open space? 32%
4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes_X_No
5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed?
Tot Lots
6. Are separation buffers required? Yes_X_No
7. Are road efficiency buffers required? YeS_X_NO
8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required?
Ye s_X_No
9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by
the plan with profiles or example:;? Yes_X_No
Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning
property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front
(across the street) of the property in question. Please list the
name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21 -digit
property identification number. This information may be obtained
from the Commissioner of Revenue's office.
Name: James R. Wilkins, III
Address: 549 Merrimans Lane Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 54-2-1
Name: Roy L. Rudolph, et als
Address: 3103 Valley Ave. Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 54-2-3
Name: Richard B. & Annabelle L. Loy
Address: 2933 John Marshall Hwy #2 Falls Church,Va 22044
Property I.D.#: 54-2-5
Name: James C. & Kay R. Williams
Address: 1619 Valley Mill Road Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 54-2-6
Name:
City of
Winchester
Address:
Box 263
Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#:
54-A-121
54-A-119
Name:
Frederick
County -Clarke County
Address:
P.O. Box
3508 Winchester, Va 22604
Property I.D.#:
54-A-114
Name:
Brookland Heights Homeowner's Assoc.
Address:
P.O. Box
3765 Winchester, Va 22604
Property I.D.#: 54B -2-110A
Name: Donna B. Rodgers
Address: 1517 Little River Dr. Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 54B-2-3-110
Name: Patricia M. Prevost
Address: 1519 Waterford Lan. Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 54B-2-3-188
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 EliL' t SK
RE: Discussion Regarding Proposed Amendments to Article XX, Definitions, of
the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
DATE: May 5, 1993
The Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to Chapter 144, Subdivision
Ordinance, and Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, during the regular meeting of April 7, 1993.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of all but two (2) of the proposed
amendments. The two (2) amendments pertain to definitions for mobile homes and
inoperable vehicles. The Planning Commission asked that the proposed definitions be sent
back to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) for further
review.
The DRRS reviewed the proposed definitions during their regular meeting of April 15, 1993.
The DRRS recommend that the proposed definition for mobile home remain as proposed
by staff, and that the proposed definition for inoperable vehicle be revised to include certain
language found in the Code of Virginia.
The following definitions have been recommended to the Planning Commission by the
Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee:
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.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703 / 678-0682
Planning Commission Members
Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directo0�
Informal Discussion of Proposed Revision to Hampton Chase Master
Development Plan
May 3, 1993
G. W. Clifford and Associates have requested an informal discussion concerning a proposed
revision to the Hampton Chase MDP. The revision consists of going from single family, zero
lot line and townhouse units to all single family zero lot line.
Attached is a sketch which shows the proposed layout of the single family units.
KCT/slk
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
-gilbert w. clifford & associate nc.
APPROVED MASTER PLAN
29 SF, Zero Lot Line
$5 Townhouse Units
114 Total Dwelling Units (5 Units/acre)
THIS ALTERNATIVE
67 SF, Zero Lot Line (3 Units/acre)
HAMPTON CHASE
Single Family Alternative
Frederick, County, Virginia
Scale: 1" = 200' April, 1993
gilbert w- Gifford & associates, inc.
Engineers - Planners
Surveyors
0. r.Pr7S�0� (A]�t�e2tis w d.....r.9—=W' (7"Wa z
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703 / 678-0682
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Direc-V'
RE: Pre -Application Discussion, Dodson Pest Control Rezoning
DATE: May 3, 1993
Attached is a general development plan for a parcel containing just over two acres and located
on the north side of Shawnee Drive. G.W. Clifford and Associates have requested time on the
agenda to discuss a proposed rezoning of this parcel for Dodson Pest Control. This type of use
is allowed in the B-2, B-3, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts.
KCT/slk
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
—gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc.
Rim . 72324
11
7 569
W—. 715,55 -------- 'S
Ex.
H1
1 /10
i—___ ------�� -- --------
M
X
I M 0)
11) c)
Cn - Uo rem
(1) M
3 X
(D C)
C:
2)
<
(D
0 E)Utlng One Sto
Brick & Fro.
Stniclur
(4 pwpW a 100GPO
9 bt \
N 44-064W E --83 W
R: 1570,
A 204.7a
E*ft Entrance
& Ddv"ayd
E'. '07-W - JZ- vds-pw S-A
Daniel L & 1(iffborly B. Kayser
DB 206 Pg. 4e3 (wkch)
Ex Zone: M-1
Ex Use: Vacant
of Ho" Gaek
50'1
NEW 1500 Sr 2.0581 Acres
QARAaE
PARKING
AREA--\
Inv.. 713.77
n
W.
S 36'3129' E -
RJQ�F_W.VIIAL
HT nFL21GATION
J— --------— — — — — — — —
40r41'51 -W - 154.73'
pcvwr Una r;
E -SEW -M --
.QQMMERCIAL Shawnee Drive - 40'R/W (State Route 652)
ENTRANCE
ElagWV 14 U -L WaW
Hot" Hoft (Zp
Ex. Zone
Ek. U": kxhat" & Vc.,
0
0
CA,
C\J
LO Project ate,
J
0
VICINITY MAP
U
Scale: 1 2000'
0
PROJECT SUMMARY
Total Area : 2.0581 Acres
Existing Zoning: RP
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Zone:
Proposed Use: Pest Control Business
Adjacent Zoning: M-2 (industrial), M-1
(Youth Center & Vacant) & RP (Vacant)
DODSON PEST CONTROL
R_60.00' Generalized Development Plan
A - 2634'
Frederick, County,
Scale: 1" = 50'
Virginia
April, 1993
gilbert w. clifford *r- & associates, inc.
Engineers - La Planners
O�Surveyors
150Gd&19.—Wg& 22no W. C—.— S-1
Redw�"1QI
WnCreVer,V03)661-2139
ll
-100 CpEJ
R: 1570,
A 204.7a
E*ft Entrance
& Ddv"ayd
E'. '07-W - JZ- vds-pw S-A
Daniel L & 1(iffborly B. Kayser
DB 206 Pg. 4e3 (wkch)
Ex Zone: M-1
Ex Use: Vacant
of Ho" Gaek
50'1
NEW 1500 Sr 2.0581 Acres
QARAaE
PARKING
AREA--\
Inv.. 713.77
n
W.
S 36'3129' E -
RJQ�F_W.VIIAL
HT nFL21GATION
J— --------— — — — — — — —
40r41'51 -W - 154.73'
pcvwr Una r;
E -SEW -M --
.QQMMERCIAL Shawnee Drive - 40'R/W (State Route 652)
ENTRANCE
ElagWV 14 U -L WaW
Hot" Hoft (Zp
Ex. Zone
Ek. U": kxhat" & Vc.,
0
0
CA,
C\J
LO Project ate,
J
0
VICINITY MAP
U
Scale: 1 2000'
0
PROJECT SUMMARY
Total Area : 2.0581 Acres
Existing Zoning: RP
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Zone:
Proposed Use: Pest Control Business
Adjacent Zoning: M-2 (industrial), M-1
(Youth Center & Vacant) & RP (Vacant)
DODSON PEST CONTROL
R_60.00' Generalized Development Plan
A - 2634'
Frederick, County,
Scale: 1" = 50'
Virginia
April, 1993
gilbert w. clifford *r- & associates, inc.
Engineers - La Planners
O�Surveyors
150Gd&19.—Wg& 22no W. C—.— S-1
Redw�"1QI
WnCreVer,V03)661-2139
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Stonewall Industrial Park MDP
DATE:
May 7, 1993
COLJNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
G. W. Clifford & Associates, by the attached letter, has requested they be allowed to informally
present a proposed master development plan for an additional portion of the Stonewall Industrial
Park.
At this writing they were unable to provide any proposed design plans or drawings but intend
to provide proposals to all Commissioners prior to the meeting. If they are unable to do that,
appropriate information will be presented at the meeting.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to give me a call.
WWM/slk
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc.
200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601
703-667-2139 • Fax: 703-665-0493
May 6,1993
Mr. Wayne Miller
Frederick County Planning Department
9 N. Loudoun Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Re: Stonewall Industrial Park
Master Plan
Dear Wayne,
If at all
possible, we would
like
to present the new 30 acre Stonewall
Industrial Park
Master Plan to the
Frederick County Planning Commission as
an information
item on May 19th.
We
can have the plan ready for presentation
to the Commission the evening of
the
19th and could possibly send them a
reduced version
in the mail so that
they
can have a general idea as to what the
concept will be.
Please let me know if this is acceptable to Bob and yourself so we can
forward plans to all Commission members.
Thank you and let me know if I can be of further assistance.
TWPlcls
cc: Tom Gilpin
Sincerely,
L'S%?�IIrJGn'
Thomas W. Price
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator WIA
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Stormwater Detention Agreement
DATE: April 23, 1993
The attached proposed Stormwater Detention Agreement, between Frederick County and the
Virginia Department of Transportation, is taken directly from the VDOT Guide for Additions
Abandonments and Discontinuances dated February 1, 1993.
This proposed 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. This will not preclude the County from having to initiate an agreement
with the party or parties that will need to maintain the facility but will streamline the process
since the County is basically the "middleman" for this action.
In the past we have had to consummate an agreement with VDOT and then in turn establish an
agreement with the entity responsible for the maintenance of the facility. In most cases the
Property Owner's Association has been responsible for maintenance that we have dealt with.
Recent examples of this are the Albin Village and Huntington Meadows subdivisions. In these
cases, we required the developer to do all the work necessary to complete the agreement between
the County and the party responsible for maintenance of the facility.
There is a concern about having Property Owner Associations responsible for maintenance for
these facilities. The positive side to this is the fact that if they fail to do any required
maintenance, the ordinance permits the County to perform or contract the necessary work and
then bill the homeowners.
Approval of this proposed agreement is recommended.
WWM/slk
attachment
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
V-Virichester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 226(M
COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DETENTION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
FREDERICK COUNTY
AND
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of f
between the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County (the
"County"), party of the first part, and the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"), party of
the second part, for the purpose of satisfying Section 2.1(F) of
the Subdivision Street Requirements for the addition of subdivision
streets made after this date throughout the County.
RECITALS
R-1 The County has approved, or anticipates approval of, certain
subdivision and site plans, the streets of which are intended for
acceptance into the Secondary System of State Highways.
R-2 Certain easements and rights-of-way will be provided for the
purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining present or
future stormwater drainage facilities including necessary inlet
structures and other pertinent facilities for removing water from
said streets.
R-3 As a prerequisite for accepting any subdivision street into
the Secondary System of State Highways, an adequate and acceptable
method for transporting stormwater runoff from said street to a
natural water course is required.
R-4 Pursuant to Section 2.1(F)(4) of the Subdivision Street
Requirements, when detention provisions are incorporated into
stormwater drainage facilities "an acceptable agreement from the
local government is required which absolves the VDOT from any
responsibility or liability for the detention facility" before such
streets are accepted as part of the Secondary System of State
Highways. "Stormwater detention facilities" as used in this
agreement shall be limited to detention/retention facilities
outside of the right-of-way dedicated to public use purposes for
streets to be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual
covenants stated herein, and other good and valuable consideration
the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by all parties
hereto, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The County agrees that VDOT has no maintenance, upkeep and/or
repair responsibility or liability for such stormwater detention
facilities except in cases of physical damage resulting from road
construction projects administered by VDOT. This Agreement does
not relieve the parties thereto of their rights and obligations
pursuant to Stormwater Management Regulations VR215-02-00 et seq.,
and related state regulations as amended or modified from time to
time. Further, the County agrees not to Mold VDOT -Liable for
damages resulting from the County's failure to enforce County
ordinances and regulations relating to stormwater flow.
2. The County will not seek indemnification or contribution from
VDOT to correct damages arising from improper maintenance or
construction of stormwater detention facilities.
3. Upon the County's request, VDOT will cooperate with the County
in a reasonable manner to assist in the denial, settlement and/or
litigation of claims for damages from the operation and maintenance
of the stormwater detention facilities.
4. The parties expressly do not intend by execution of this
Agreement to create in the public, or any member thereof, any
rights as a third party beneficiary, or to authorize anyone not a
party hereto to maintain a suit for any damages pursuant to the
terms or provisions of this Agreement. In addition, the parties
understand and agree that this Agreement is not to be construed as
an indemnification against third party claims.
5. VDOT agrees to recommend that the Commonwealth Transportation
Board accept, as part of the Secondary System of State Highways,
new subdivision streets which meet all provisions of the
Subdivision Street Requirements.
6. The parties hereto agree that the provisions of this Agreement
may be invoked by reference in any resolution of the County
requesting any future addition to the Secondary System of State
Highways.
Witness the following signatures and seals:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
FREDERICK COUNTY
By:
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
Approved as to form COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of I by John R. Riley, Jr.,
Frederick County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of Frederick County.
My commission expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY OF RICHMOND, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of r by
, Commissioner on behalf of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, Department of Transportation.
My commission expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Engineering & Inspections
9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor
703/665-5643
March 26, 1993
Mr. Tom Price
G. W. Clifford and Associates, Inc
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Master Development Plan
Hillsdale Estates
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Tom:
We have completed our review of the proposed master development
plan for Hillsdale Estates and offer the following comments:
1. 'Stormwater Management
The proposed plan indicates a tentative location of a
detention structure near the southwest corner of the
property adjacent to Abrams Creek. It is possible that
this will be the only structure required for this project
provided the surface runoff across the site can be routed
to this area.
The general information provided with the submittal
indicates that the project will be developed in five (5)
phases. We will require that the stormwater management
structures be included in the initial development phase.
The site is underlain by the Martinsburg shale which
exhibits runoff coefficients on the order of 0.3 to 0.35
when covered by woods and grass, respectively. After
stripping, the exposed residual soil which is very
impervious could increase these values to 0.5. This
condition should be considered in the design of the erosion
and sediment control plan.
2. 100 Year Flood
r, = \�
The level of the 100 year flood should d3 {need, dri .t1Ye
master development plan.
APR 1 6 ; !
Fax: 703/678-0682 - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virgttlia___ _ _ 22604
Mr. Tom Price
Page Two
March 26, 1993
3. Steep Lots
The proposed development plan indicates the location of
townhouse units within areas designated as steep slopes.
If possible, these units should be relocated to avoid
potential slope stability problems as well as additional
costs related to foundation construction. If they cannot
be relocated, detailed site plans will be required to
delineate the finished grades and design floor elevations.
Slope stability analyses may also be required depending on
the magnitudes of the cuts and fills.
Please contact me if you have any questions related to the above
comments.
Sincerely,
Harve Strawsnyder Jr., P.E.
Direc of Public Works
HES:rls
cc: file