The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 10-21-92 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia OCTOBER 21, 1992 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Meeting Minutes of September 16, 1992 ........................... A 2) Monthly and Bimonthly Reports ................................ B 3) Planning & Development Activity Report ......................... C 4) Committee Reports ........................................ D 5) Citizen Comments ........................................... E 6) Subdivision application #009-92 of Preston Place to create two lots from 19.949 acres. This property is located on the east side of U.S. Route 522, on the south side of Route 645, in the Shawnee District. (Mr. Miller)...............................................F 7) Discussion regarding the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan. (Mr. Wyatt) ............................................... G 7.30 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS S) Conditional Use Permit #012-92 of .Till R. Holden, for a cottage occupation (book binding). This property is located two miles beyond Cedar Grove Road, on Route 6541, in the Gainesboro District. (Mr. Miller) .............................................. H 9) Conditional Use Permit #009-92 of Charles and Faye Grady for a dog kennel. This property is located off of Route 735 on Route 709, in the Opequon District. (Mr. Miller) ............................................... I OTHER 10) Presentation by Professor Warren Hofstra and Professor Clarence Geier on the Archeological Survey Results. ......................................................... 1 11) Memo regarding Virginia Scenic Byways Program. (Mr. Tierney) .............................................. K 12) Discussion regarding the Planning Departments budget and work schedule. (Mr. Watkins) .............................................. L 13) Other. (no attachment) ............................................ M MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on September 16, 1992. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Back Creek District; Todd Shenk, Gainesboro District; Manual C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George Romine, Citizen at Large; Marjorie Copenhaver, Citizen at Large; Roger Thomas, Citizen at Large; and Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison. Planning Staff taff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; and W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay call the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 5 AND AUGUST 19 1992 Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of August 5, 1992 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the minutes of August 19, 1992 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plan -_9114192 Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the committee discussed the issue of Virginia's Scenic Highways and Byways and hope to obtain more information before making any decisions. Mrs. Copenhaver told the Commission that plans were beginning for this years Comprehensive Plan Public Meetings. She said that the committee desired to change the format of the meetings this year. According to Mrs. Copenhaver, different county agencies will be asked to participate in the public meetings. Meetings have been scheduled for October 26 and November 2, 1992. Mrs. Copenhaver said the meetings should deal strictly with comprehensive and long range planning. Mrs. Copenhaver said there was also some discussion on the proposed ordinance amendments on Historically Significant Sites. Development Review and Regulations - 9/10Z92 Mr. Thomas said the committee discussed a request to amend the ordinance to allow restaurants in the B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District. Mr. Thomas said the committee was planning a field trip to look at revising the sign regulations and also the green area regulations for parking areas. Winchester Planning Commission Mr. Shenk said he was unable to attend the past Winchester Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Shenk noted that one item on the agenda was a request of the Planning Commission for an ordinance amending the Winchester Land Subdivision Ordinance which would exempt certain subdivisions from state plain coordinate referencing and modify the public notification procedure. Sanitation Authority Following committee reports, Mrs. Copenhaver left the Planning Commission meeting to attend a meeting of the Sanition Authority to discuss the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Public Meetings. 3 Transportation Committee - September 14, 1992 Mr. Thomas said the committee held a public hearing on the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan which will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for approval. According to Mr. Thomas some moderate changes have been made. SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS: Subdivision Application #007-92 of Hugh Price to subdivide 24,959 sq. ft. into two lots in the Shawnee District. ACTION - APPROVED Mr. Miller related background information to the Commissioners stating that the applicant is seeking to subdivide the property in order to build another house that can accommodate the physical limitations of his wife. Mr. Miller stated the house may be permitted to set closer to the street to allow for uniformity with the adjoining properties. Mr. Hugh Price, property owner, was present to represent the application. Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson, and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve subdivision application #007-92 of Hugh Price to subdivide a 24,959 sq. ft. parcel into two lots with the condition listed below. This property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Harvard Drive and Price Drive, in the Shawnee District, and is identified as GPIN 640000A000111C. 1. The two structures on Lot 1 will either be removed or relocated to meet required setbacks prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residence. Subdivision Application #008-92 of Lot 28 of Fort Collier Industrial_ Park for one 18,218 acre lot, in the Stonewall District. ACTION - APPROVED 4 Mr. Miller stated that a master development plan has been approved for Fort Collier Industrial Park and the division of this lot is in conformance with the master plan. Mr. Jim McIlvaine, of Fort Collier Industrial Park, was present to address the Commission. Mr. Thomas asked Mr. McIlvaine how traffic from this lot would access Route 37. Mr. McIlvaine explained that the main portion of traffic would travel from Park Center Drive to Route 11 to ingress Route 37. He added that the staff had visited the site and consider the road to be adequate. 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 #008-92 for Lot 28 of Fort Collier Industrial Park. This property is located at the intersection of Park Center Drive and West Brooke Road in the Stonewall District, and is identified as GPIN 540000A0000810. OTHER Discussion re: Urban Development Area and Suburban Residential Development. The Planning Commission and staff discussed the urban development area and the type of suburban residential development that has been planned for that area. Mr. Watkins presented a history of recent suburban residential development planning efforts. The Commission decided that discussion should continue on concepts central to the County's current planning approach ADJOURNMENT 11 M No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary MONTHLY REPORT Comparison of Individual Monthly Totals Zoning Anr;l 1997 Total April 1991, Total 4/90 4/89 4/88 4/8 4/86 Zo a Yw 7a z p1 H E-4 o W H HO Hrn M a W H F' U W��E-+Ot � E-' H C�7 tKC Hn En p FC H W �0 Z U. U cn 04 to p U U U O p O U U U TOTAL PERMITS AP- PROVED FOR ZONING 30 34 33 21 31 149 33 22 15 36 43 149 179 236 212 175 138 1. Multi -family 0 8 0 0 g 16 7 0 0 0 0 7 8 34 48 20 0 2. Single-family dwellings 12 6 5 9 3 35 7 2 8 12 8 37 54 62 55 66 60 3. Mobile homes 2 5 0 0 1 8 5 3 1 0 2 11 11 14 18 11 10 - New Units 1 3 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 0 5 2 7 11 - Replacements 5 6 1 2 0 0 1 4 1 3 0 0 2 6 9 7 7 6 4. Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 4 5. Commercial 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 5 18 6 5 1 6. Miscellaneous 16 15 28 12 19 90 11 14 6 20 33 84 84E12]5 85 73 67 PERMITS - County Total 400 300 200 1 100 ( I 0 — 1986— —198----- — -- ---�-- — — -- 148— 19 9 19 0 — 19 1 19 2 sir - COUNTY TOTAL - ..,�SIDENTIAL ------ - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL. MUNTHLY REPORT Zoning ��"ra11��1 �l tiucumuiati.ve Monthly TOtAls -4. 1-4 1--4 - - January -.April 1992 Total January - pr>_ Total 990 1989 tail U W zp W � z ,��' C�7 tH u] O H 0 cn H C�7 3 0 H U WW z LD P'4 H �+ V .8 �+ 0 H O [0i 0 E�-1 �+ 0 U H >, E U U TOTAL PERMITS AP- PROVED FOR ZONING 85 74 74 88 99 420 81 76 45 88 147 437 622 620 596 598 330 1. Multi -family 0 8 0 0 22 30 7 24 9 7 2 0 14 !�6 0 0 17 '`:3 1 39 1 6 17 8 14 126 70 60 88 14 2. Single-family dwellings 31 15 18 48 25 137 111 172 221 224 235 131 3. Mobile homes - New Units 3 10 1 0 4 I 5 1 0 1 18 8 27 40 :43 24 32 20 38 28 - Replacements16 2 5 0 0 3 10 16 16 11 24 1.9 12 22 12 4. Industrial 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 8 0 3 1 13 8 5 0 0 1 5. Commercial .:0 0 0 0 0 5 35 3 45 1 24 2 42 3 112 14 42 ..l 51 15 16 6. Miscellaneous 51 40 55 40 48 234 258 234 280 229 222 140 rnful-L-1'S - UOU11tY Total 800 .11 400 200 / .1 1986 19 7 1988 1989 1< - RESIDENTIAL '- COUNTY TOTAL 1 1991 1992 ----- — — — - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL MONTHLY REPORT Comparison of Individual Monthly Totals Zoning May 1992 Total -Mav 1991 Total 5/90 _U89 5/88j5/8]77 ��586 M P a a ;3-UPi o a a [W�j H pp W p �' W Z E' Ei H H N H U 0 U opt' Ot Ez�+�H H CF47 EnO U t�7 vi a p o O cn U U U U U u U TOTAL PERMITS AP- PROVED FOR ZONING 35 21 22 26 39 143 21 22 30 43 56 172 166 220. 161 135 114 I. Multi-family p 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 6 5 11 0 28 9 0 7 2. Single -family dwellings 11 5 3 5 4 28 7 2 10 17 6 42 51 79 52 33 33 3. Mobile Homes 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 5 1 0 2 10 14 12 17 15 15 - New Units 1 0 2 0 2 5 2 2 1 0 2- Replacements 7 4 1 8 14 9 p 1 2 0 2 0 5 0 3 0 0 Q3 10 11 9 1 4. Industrial 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 5. Commercial p p p 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Q 3 11 18 6 11 0 6. Miscellaneous 22 14 17 18 30 101 11 15 18 19 43 106 88 81 77 jd 58 PERMITS - County Total 400 1 300 -- - -- 200 100 0 - ----- - ------------ - 1986 1987 1000 9 8 1989 1990 1991 1992 COUNTY TOTAL - REoiDENTIAL - - - -- -. - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL MUN` HLY REPORT Zoning — «ccumutative Monthly Tottlls 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 Januar - May 1.992 o a Ww �Ln U W C7 to W to O Total 0 E;' U Januar f0A C7 q. to - May V 1991 m z O Total E-4 E-4 OU 1990 OU 1989 H Ei 0 1988 H H U 1987 1986 EA H U H O TOTAL PERMITS AP— PROVED FOR ZONING 120 95 96 114 138 563 102 98 75 131 203 609 788 840 757 733 444 I. Multi -family 2. Single-family dwellings 0 42 8 20 0 21 0 53 25 29 33 165 - 7 31 11 2 1 6 46 0 16 11 , '12' 9 8 3 60 0 27 4 4 0 0 2 42 7 56 1 1 0 3 3 61 11 23 10 7 3 1 3 155 25 153 126 223 98 300 69 276 88 21 268 164 3. Mobile Iiomes New Units 5 12 3 2 6 28 37 21 54 - 20 55 25 49 28 53 3.0- 43 25 - Replacements 4. Industrial 5. Commercial 3 7 0 2 319 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ___L5 1 1 14 34 30 21 --- 23 18 13 10 7 0 0 2 17 53 19 57 26 16 6. Miscellaneous 73 54' 72 58 78 335 364 322 361 306 298 198 rGIU1110 - UOUnty Total 1000 750 500 250 0 �"'m'� - COUNTY TOTAL =----- - RESIDENTIAL -------- - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL MONTHLY REPORT Zoning 21 26 Comparison of Individual 50 Monthly Totals 29 June -1992 Total June -'.1991 41 I. Multi -family 0 0 0 24 9 2. Single-family 0 0 0 a a dwellings 9 H O a 6 3. Mobile Homes W� WW v W O 2 H - New Units 1 WwW U W Z 0 2 4 - Replacements a 5 0 WW WW 4. Industrial 0 0 0 W O 5 37 H W 0 U � - n 103 73 WU o TOTAL PERMITS AP- 21 26 22 43 50 PROVED FOR ZONING 29 34 23 54 41 I. Multi -family 0 0 0 24 9 2. Single-family 0 0 0 1 1 0 dwellings 9 11 4 17 6 3. Mobile Homes 2 6 0 0 2 13 - New Units 1 1 0 0 2 4 - Replacements 1 5 0 0 0 4. Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 5 37 0 0 0 0 0 5. Commercial 74 103 73 0 0 0 0 1 6. Miscellaneous 18 17 19 13 23 PERMITS - County Total 400 300 200 100 181 21 26 22 43 50 33 0 0 0 12 8 47 7 1 2 9 5 10 3 5 5 0 0 6 3 0 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 90 10 18 14 21 35 1»� 170/ iy6Z5 1989 1990 1991 1992 - COUNTY TOTAL - RESIDENTIAL -- — — — — — - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTn iAL Total 6/90 6/89 6/88 6/87 6/86 ;D5 U po H U H U H 0 U 162 187 187 173 169 138 20 12 32 12 0 2 24 35 60 61 44 43 13 14 10 13 20 18 8 3 3 7 4 10 5 11 7 6 16 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 37 2 13 2 2 98 89 83 74 103 73 1»� 170/ iy6Z5 1989 1990 1991 1992 - COUNTY TOTAL - RESIDENTIAL -- — — — — — - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTn iAL MULVTIJbY REPORT Zoning — riccumutatlVe Monthly TotAls 1=-6 1-6 1-6 1-6 1-6 Januar - June 1992 Total Januar - Total 0 (t�irw HFC C7 a OU to j al cn ( P4 0 0 U a W C�7 O cF'n w U W p N U HZ E OU H U H ZH O F H. O U F HH z O U TOTAL, PERMITS AP— PROVED FOR ZONING 149 129 119 168 179 744" 123 124 97 174 253 771 975 1027 930 902 582 1. Multi -family 2. Single—family 0 8 0 24 34 66 7 0 0 19 19 45 138 130 81 88 23 dwellings 3. Mobile Homes - New Units - Replacements 4. Industrial 5. Commercial 6. Miscellaneous 51 7 3 4 0 p 91 31 18 6 12 1 0 71' 25 3 3 0 0 0 91 70 2 0 2 0 1 71 35 8 5 3 0 1 101 212 38 17 21 1 2 425 38 14 12 1 7 56 17 16 4 10 3 78 29 9 7 0 3 56 65 1 0 3 4 82 28177 10 3 1 S 190 50 1 15 258 68 10 360 65 28 7 337 62 3 312 207 73 61 35 0 0 2 22 462 90 411 21 444 70 380 28 18 401 271 FERMITS - County Total idoo 750 0Z-11 250 - COUNTY TOTAL - RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report DATE: October 8, 1992 (1) Rezonin s Pending: dates are submittal dates Twin Lakes 4/04/90 (Shaw) (RA to B2/RP) (2) Rezonin s Approved: dates are BOS meeting dates None (3) Rezonin s Denied: dates are BOS meeting dates None (4) Conditional Use Permits Pending: dates are submittal dates Charles & Faye Grady 06/25/92 Opeq Dog Kennel Jill Holden 09/09/92 Gain Book Binding Independent Order of 10/25/90 Ston Lgt. Industrial Odd Fellows 09/11/92 BkCk Lodge Hall, Lake Centre 05/15/91 Shaw Community Park & Red Star Express Lines 05/24/91 Ston Shelter Windy Hill Business Pk 09/28/92 Shaw Off Premise Sign (5) Conditional Use Permits Approved: dates are approval dates None (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 Winchester Airport 03/02/92 Shaw Increased safety 2 Freeton 04/27/92 Opeq Winchester Church of God 07/29/92 BkCk Salem Church of Breth. 09/25/92 Opeq Red Apple Deli 10/02/92 Opeq zone/road relocation Townhouses Church Social Hall relocate gas tail (7) Site Plans Approved: (dates are aRRroval dates) Miles Lab (rev) 10/08/92 Opeq Manufacturing (8) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Hugh Price 08/17/92 Shawnee Preston Place 09/14/92 Shawnee Jacob Moreland 10/06/92 Shawnee (9) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (PIC approval dates Abrams Point, Phase Frederick Woods Hampton Chase Lake Centre Fredericktowne Est. (sections 5, 6 and Coventry Courts Senseny Glen Freeton Fairfax Drive Ext. Deer Run @ Sherando Ft. Collier Lot 28 7) 6/13/90 5/16/90 02/27/91 06/19/91 10/16/91. Shawnee Opequon Stonewall Shawnee Opequon 12/04/91 Shawnee 12/04/91 Shawnee 05/20/92 O p e q u o n 08/05/92 Opequon 08/19/92 Opequon 09/16/92 Stonewall (10) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates None (11) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval dates Battlefield Partnership Hampton Chase (revised) Freeton Preston Place 04/08/92 Back Creek 05/27/92 Stonewall 06/08/92 Opequon 10/23/92 Shawnee (12) FMDP Administ. Approved dates are admin. approval dates None 3 (13) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending•(submit dates) Ray Morrison James Jordan 09/03/92 Shaw 09/25/92 Shaw (14) BZA Applications Approved• (approval dates) None (15) BZA Applications Denied• None 5' attached garage 5.2' carport (16) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER R None E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT 417 1. House Numberingf91,1 System The backlog of house numbering corrections is now down to a manageable situation and the staff is working house number calls on a daily basis. 2. Historic Issues Bob Watkins attended a meeting of the Planning District's Civil War Heritage Tourism Committee at which battlefield protection methods were discussed with planners from Washington County, Maryland; Adams County, Pennsylvania; and Hanover County, Virginia. 3. Corridgx—Appearance Bob Watkins attended the Chamber of Commerce's Appearance Committee meeting and provided information on commercial corridor design standards. Bob also attended a symposium conducted by the Northern Virginia Community Appearance Alliance in Fairfax on Community Appearance and the Law. Issues concerning the design and appearance of development were discussed. 4. Comprehensive Planning Bob Watkins discussed Comprehensive Planning in Frederick County with the Hardy County Planning Commission in Moorefield, West Virginia at their invitation. 5. Site Plan Reviews Evan Wyatt conducted the following site plan reviews: On September 25, met with Lewis Boyer II to conduct a preliminary review of the site plan for Boyer Landscaping. On September 29, met with Jay Lingnell of SSOE, Inc. and David McCormick of T.E. Ibberson to finalize plans for administrative approval of the Miller Milling project (Hershey Pasta - Phase II). On September 29, provided Perry Engineering, Inc. with a land disturbance permit for the addition to the Kraft/General Foods plant. 6. Warrior Road On September 17, Kris Tierney met with Jim Doran and Jim Bowman to discuss the possible land transfer from JASBO to Frederick County to accommodate the proposed relocation of Warrior Road. Mr. Bowman has agreed to give as much as 20-30 acres which could be used to compensate for the approximate three to four acres of park land needed for the road. G. W. Clifford is preparing a proposal on the exact location and amount of acreage from the JASBO tract. On September 22 Kris met with Matthew Hott of the Parks & Recreation Department, Ed Strawsnyder, and representatives of Buckley & Lages at the terminus of Westmoreland in Fredericktowne Estates. A site was agreed upon for the stockpiling of fill material generated from the Village at Sherando. This fill material would be used to construct the stream crossing if Warrior Road is constructed as presently located. 7. Joint Frederick County/Stephens City Planning Committee On September 28, the first meeting of the Joint Frederick County/Stephens City Planning Committee agreed to begin by examining existing zoning and policy statements concerning the Route 11 South Business Corridor. The group meets again on October 19. S. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Lanny Bise met with Robert Connelly of the Division of Soil and Water Conservation for the annual review of our Erosion and Sediment Control Program. Lanny also met with Ed Strawsnyder and Tom Whittaker of Buckley-Lages to discuss an erosion and sediment control plan for some work Buckley-Lages is performing. 9. Alternative Wastewater Treatment Study Lanny Bise completed the sanitary survey work on the Rural Community Center Alternative Wastewater Treatment Study. 10. Other Lanny Bise appeared in General District Court regarding four zoning violations. P/C Review Date: 10/07/92 P/C Review Date: 10/21/92 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #009-92 PRESTON PLACE 2 LOTS LOCATION: On the east side of U.S. Route 522 on the south side of Route 645, Airport Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64000OA000045B PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) land use - vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned M-1 (Light Industrial), RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) - land use - State Highway, agricultural, residential and vacant PROPOSED USE: 2 lots - 19.949 acres REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to the subdivision of this property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans for review. Entrances will have to be constructed to VDOT minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Fire Marshal: All fire/rescue comments will be made at site plan stage. Inspections Dept. Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Shall comment on Use Group of any non-residential buildings at the time of structural plans review. 2 Regional Airport: Please refer to Airport Authority letter to Mr. Robert W. Watkins, dated August 25, 1992. (See attached letter). County Engineer: The Engineering Dept. has no comments at this time. Sanitation: No comment on the division of the 19.949 acres into two parcels. Note: The Sanitation Authority has not approved the MDP for sewer and water, thus proposed basements on parcel 1 may change. Planning & Zoning: This total parcel consists of 19.949 acres. The 17.277 acre proposed parcel has been approved for construction of apartments. The 2.672 acre parcel was not needed or desired by the builder of the apartments and therefore the property owners desire the subdivision. This division is in compliance with the revised master plan. The entire existing parcel has 1206.17 feet of road frontage on Route 645 with the 2.672 acre parcel having 457.35 feet of. frontage. The proposed parcel 2 could be developed at a later time and will be required to meet all ordinance requirements if this occurs. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 10/07/92 PC MTG.: Approval. SUBDIVISION NOT CONSIDERED AT 10/07/92 PC MTG. DUE TO LACK OF MEMBERS PRESENT. REGIC WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 5 ~ 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22502 (703) 662.2422 \��1 fOM Robert W. Watkins, Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick. County, Virginia Past Office Box Sol Winchester, Virginia LSEol Re: Response to Request for Comments Preston �n P1ace Apartments Dear Mr. Watkins: The Airport Authority has directed me to inform you that its position on new residential construction within the Airport Support Area has not changed. The Airport Authority strongly recommends that residential units not be built within the Airport Support Area for reasons associated with perceived and real noise and fly -over nuisance. The story is a very old one and has been told for many years at numerous locations ions throughout the Country. Residential development occurs near an airport, people move in, discover the airport, and immediately begin complaining about aircraft noise. As a result, aeronautical activity and air commerce is restricted. If the proposed Preston Place development becomes a reality, the story will be told again... this time in Winchester. At the time the subject property was rezoned, there was no universal noise policy or "noise savvy", therefore, the issue slipped by all concerned including the Airport Authority, the Virginia Department of Aviation, and consultants. These entities simply had no reason to object to residential development at the site of the Proposed Preston Place. Federal Aviation �n Administration (FAA) guidelines were followed? unfortunately they only addressed noise levels above E5 Ldn' (the property is located at the 50 - 55 Ldn). Since then, a National awareness of residential encroachment on airports and resulting noise problems has been developed and verbalized. The FAA is now aware that aircraft noise does not stip at the Ea5 Ldn line and airports are pressing the Federal Government for a National Noise Policy that may eliminate future airport residential encroachment. We offer the following recommendations which we believe may reduce the impact of a Potentially unfavorable situation. 1. Day -Night Average Noise Levels. Respcinse to � Request for Ccimments Prestor Place Ap:artmerits Plage a. Enco+_trage the developer- to present unequivocal notice of prt_,bable aircraft noise and fly -over nuisance to be given to all potential apartment tenants. Specifically, the following actions should be taken: (1) ReqUirernent to present a dr_cminant statement of probable aircraft nc_ise and fly -over nuisance in rental agreements/ leases. (C) Requirement to past prominent warnings with specific regard to the proximity of the airport and probable aircraft rici i se and fly -over nuisauce on all advert i sement s, brochures and promcit i ona l materials. b. Require acoustical treatment of the apartment building(s), i.e. , appropriate noise insulation, baffled vents, air conditioning, etc. We appreciate the difficult position Frederick County officials continuously face concerning zoning hindsight and the extremely difficult position we are suggesting with respect to potential airport noise problems. The airport is a significant public investment and an important economic development tool that, if protected from residential encroachment, will serve our growing comrjiunity and the region for years to come. If you should have questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Ken Seth F. 4J� egand Executive Director PC: Richard Dick, Chairman, Beard of Supervisors W. Harringtr_n Smith, Supervisor, Shawnee District John R. Riley Patten Harris Rust & Associates, pc APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTy VIRGINIA Date:SST //� 1q92 Application 9 Q09-9,:-;2, Fee Paid Applicant/Agent: G, C/• r�or� f,' As.sec,-.Ies / c. Address:2oa f r v rp S�rec I-ncA eSTCr r ihi 22 O A44 -t-,: P. Dva e Brow Phone: Owners name: f� r Address: P_ o. 0Y, 756Ca 0 C1 V; r 22¢0 Phone : (70:3) Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: D. :S Contact Person: Phone: C7o3 78G - /400 Name of Subdivision: 14;lreS Aor, Number of Lots 2 Total Acreage /9. 949res Property Location: ,� s� S.'d e o�7 L). S. So u { 645 (Give State Rt.#, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District ShacvrJ e Tax ID Number (GPIN) _(:fo4_A - 45 B Property zoning and present use: RP = Va c4r, Adjoining property zoning and use: RP= A2 4 MZ Y"'IQC'iCVr7"V'rCi�� VGJCQh/ � S��1TC /�T%4�GtlRV Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes- L_ No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of superviscrs? Yes No What was the MDP title? Pres 4r) P/gce Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No if yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) 2. 6,72 Acres Number and types of housing units in this development: Number / 2 o Types CT y r �er� i� og r7-rn e r�TS J FINAL PLAT "PRESTON PLACE" SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA j Y •V' • � rf� - i � � ft�� v�. VICINITY MAP Scale 1 Z 000 APPROVED BY FRED. CO. SANITATION AUTHORITY DATE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE VA. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION DATE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE The above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Silver Communities, Inc., as appears in the accompanying plats, is with the consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors, and trustees, if any. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the land contained in this subdivision is a portion of the land conveyed to Silver Communities, Inc. by deed dated October 20, 1989, said deed recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 729 at pagg 798. EALTflO� yoj,5�D DUANE o`0� OWENO, 1285 tANi) P. Duane Brown, C.L.S. September 1, 1992 1 COVER SHEET gilbert w, cliffor� associates, inc. SHEET Surveyor. OF R ..�.._..,,.,. vb, pull •'ra.v, vY.IW 3L01 (1¢,1 .n -ill/ 30' Ingress -Egress Esm't. N70'07'49"E (DB 671 Pg. 497) (DB 659 Pg. 708) 71.45' S.R. 645 -Airport Road (80'R/W) -S80 -32'13 "E 1206.17' I nr Drainage Esm'ts. Elwood H., Sr. \ \ (DB 671 Pg. 492) & Blythe P. LU 20' Utility Esm't. 11 Parcel 2 Whitacre N ^ (DB 674 Pg. 84) I 2.672 Acres ;.(See Sheet 3 of 3 ' tnt0 N80°32'13"W James R. &(31 cl C) 300.99' Maggie Seal O N 'Net weather Z;k � Streams A.W.F.8 B.W.F. 1� -- Proposed `\ / 20' San. Sewer 3 Farm Wailman L_ & o Easement pond �r�6 61 °7 Anna B. Collins tri u: Paved Driveway ``/ 03 N _N - Cd Parcel 1 � Ln m� 3 17.277 Acres C. Douglas, -- lnt ¢ B ° & Fern L M John W., Jr. m & Peggy B. Foster �a Maintained by Fos 6'59'38"E 65.00'-- N4210 7'1 7"W--v` 5.00'— N42107'17"W--v` 235-01' rs 22 GPIN : 64 -A -45B ZONING: RP USE:VACANT Adams 41e//,. \ Fence Post S16051'30. W9 �( Found 172.41 ' erhead Power S03 °34'35"E 160.31' fl4int n C rae� P W.F t Wet Weather Stream �`--' S 16'41 '57"W 313.21' LE�--ND s Iron Rod Found o Point (unless otherwise indicated) e Barbed Wire Fence a Board Fence Ar Power Pole A -'A American Wire Fence % P. DUANE 0 BROWN NO. 1285 O� F p��FO tA N D SJ& G_• to r\ em e o N Jr. FEMA 100 YR. (177e 11-... ,W-- ,W --FLOOD LINE deo Cr aJo� ea/h GS S42°04'21 "W 115.07' "PRESTON PLACE" DATE: September 1, 1992 1 SCALE: 1--200' SHEET gilbert W. cliffor & associates, inc. 2 E,Lio--r, . OF z... y— - �•�.W 33.01 (N31 .�-3113 Y�se-��. a 31W1 (At) N"/ 20' Utility Ea (Dg 67 serpent 4 p9. 84)State Ro (06 659 Pg. 7p ute 64$ - 8) Sao. E AirpOr' R 3213°ad (80,R Draina/Wge Eases X457- _ ) (DB 671 p ement 9' 492) (1)SQ9e Eas en N13°15.39..W (Dg 671 pg 92) t 157.58' If— 10' (TYp•) Parcel 2 --N12111'01"g 2.672 Acres 90.03' — Painroposed 20' Dra e E / 1 g asemem Wet Weather �C-1m Streams N16°03'59"W 130.08' /Ny N46032'53"W /°y �a 26.17 S34'17'22"W 50.25' 1 /' S66'15'02"W 54.63'N63°26'06"W 1 38.01' j 84°17'22"W 30.15' r / pod C. Douglas, Jr. 61 �� 15' (Typ-) & Fern L. Adams Pond (Drainage) Easement / (DB 729 Pg. 792) LEGEND • Iron Rod Found Point o F. DUANE Vr eaowN �' N0. 1285 n� � i 3�F0 � N D SJ�`I'<'O S21 °54'34' W 108.76' "PR RS rnm Pz e rP" DATE: September 1, 1992 SCALE: 1"=100' gilbert w. clifforo & associates, inc. SHEET E.Zir - L.°d PI.nner. F sa Y... 3 R.1�m.��t. h.YY SSKI t]OII .n.IIU .'bd�i. vb.bl. 33N1 (!m .� A T 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: Frederick County Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: September 28, 1992 The Frederick County Transportation Committee held a public meeting to discuss the Frederick County Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Two citizens addressed the Transportation Committee regarding projects that are currently included on this plan. V "IbwV Mr. Willem Johnston, of Route 704 (Back Creek Road), presented photographs to the committee and asked that the Virginia Department of Transportation conduct studies to determine if short term safety improvements could be made to certain sections of Route 704. Mr. Jim Walters addressed the Transportation Committee regarding hardsurface improvements to Route 636 (Huttle Road) between Route 709 and Route 735. Mr. Walters expressed concern with dust and increased traffic on this road. Mr. William H. Bushman stated that current traffic counts on this section of Route 636 do not make this project as high a priority as other hardsurface improvements. Mr. Bushman also suggested that Mr. Walters request an average daily trip recount for this section of road. This recount would not be conducted until late next year. After public comment, the Transportation Committee discussed each phase of the six year secondary road plan. No new projects were added to this plan, and projects that are currently funded for this fiscal year were removed. The Transportation Committee recommended unanimous approval of the Frederick County Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 FREDERICK COUNTY SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN MAJOR PROTECTS/NEW HARDSURFACE/INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION 1993 - 1994 Frederick County Transportation Committee (Recommendation for approval on September 14, 1992) Frederick County Planning Commission (Recommendation for approval on October 7, 1992) Adopted on November 11, 1992 by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Major road improvement projects command the reconstruction of hardsurfaced roads to enhance public safety. Improvements required for road width, road alignment, road strength, and road gradient are considered major road improvement projects. 1993 - 1994 SIX YEAR MAJOR PROJECT ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 1 661 Rt. 672 Rt. 663 1053 1.92 miles ST/GA 07/93 2 656* Rt. 657 to Rt. 659 intersec 3916 1.01 miles SH/ST 07/95 3 628 Rt. 631 Rt. 732 1482 2.41 miles BC 12/95 4 621** Rt. 622 Rt. 1109 1808 1.38 miles BC 12/96 5 647 widen between Rts. 277 & 642 6723 2.08 miles OP UN/SH 6 608 Back Creek bridge 0.7E of 681 117 0.2 miles GA UN/SH 7 608 Rt. 50W Rt. 616 1201 2.83 miles BC UN/SH 8 659 widen from bridge to Rt, 7E 272 0.2 miles ST UN/SH 9 656 widen between Rts. 655 & 657 2188 1.39 miles SH/ST UN/SH 10 Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Stephens City UN/SH 11 Towns curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Middletown UN/SH 12 642 Rt. 1031 Rt. 5225 2150 1.87 miles SH/OP UN/SH 13 664 Rt. 761 Rt. 660 1178 1.1 miles ST UN/SH 14 660 Rt. 664 Rt. 7E 1653 2.13 miles ST UN/SH 15 622 City of Winchester to Rt. 37 9299 1.03 mules BC UN/SH 16 600 1.07 miles N Rt. 600 to Rt. 684 608 1.93 miles GA UN/SH 17 659 Rt. 656 bridge 224 1.8 miles ST UN/SH 18 657 City of Winchester to Rt. 656 8141 1.6 miles SH UN/SH 19 739 Rt. 673 Rt. 522N 2490 1.66 miles 1.6 miles GA OP/SH UN/SH UN/SH 20 636 Rt. 277 Rt. 642 429 21 644 City of Winchester to Rt. 522S 4600 1.36 miles SH UN/SH 22 661 Rt. I IN Rt. 660 355 3.24 miles ST UN/SH 1993 - 1994 Road Improvement Plan Page -2- 1993 - 1994 SIX YEAR MAJOR PROJECT ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Continued) RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 23 622 Rt. 629 Rt. 37 4076 5.86 miles BC UN/SH 24 657 Rt. 656 to Clarke County 4383 2.07 miles ST UN/SH 25 641 Rt. 647 Rt. 277 1931 0.68 miles OP UN/SH 26 761 Rt. IIN Rt. 664 2778 1.13 miles ST UN/SH 27 659 Rt. 716 Rt. 656 5894 1.09 miles SH/ST UN/SH 28 636 Rt. 277 to 1.5 miles south (277) 481 1.5 miles OP UN/SH 29 621 Rt. 1109 Rt. 628 1398 0.57 miles BC UN/SH 30 600 Rt. 753 Rt. 614 919 1.8 miles BC UN/SH 31 655 Rt. 50E Rt. 656 2547 0.79 miles SH UN/SH 32 642 0.2 miles west Rt. 1070 to Rt. 1031 6355 0.9 miles OP/SH UN/SH 33 661 Rt. 663 Rt. 11N 7097 1.21 miles ST/GA UN/SH 34 628 Rt. 621 to City of Winchester 3008 1.25 miles BC UN/SH 35 627 Interstate 81 to Route 11S 4580 0.49 miles OP UN/SH 36 704 Rt. 632 Rt. 683 215 4.11 miles BC UN/SH ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS: ADT - 1991 Average Daily Secondary Traffic Tabulation Counts. DIST - Distance of total improvement length in miles. MAGIS - Magisterial District in which road improvement will occur. AD.DAT - Scheduled Advertisement Date for road improvement project to begin. 656* - Improvements to Route 656 will include the intersection of Route 656 and Route 659, as well as the "S" curve leg of Route 656. 621 ** - Improvements to Route 621 will include drainage improvements south of Route 622 and the realignment of the "S" turn on Route 621. 1993 - 1994 Road Improvement Plan HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Page -3- Hardsurface road improvement projects provide impervious resurfacing and reconstruction of non-hardsurfaced secondary roads. Hardsurface improvements are considered primarily by the average daily traffic count for these secondary roads. 1993 - 1994 SIX YEAR NEW HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 1 734 Rt.522N to 1.5 miles south (522) 85 1.55 miles GA 07/93 2 649 Rt. 648 Rt. 625 58 1.8 miles BC 07/94 3 636 Rt. 735 Rt. 640 83 1.1 miles OP 05/96 4 706 Rt. 11S to end of Rt.706 59 0.35 miles BC 08/96 5 699 0.5 to 0.7 miles south Rt. 694 142 0.2 GA 08/96 6 702 Rt. 703 to West Virginia line 124 0.8 miles GA 08/97 7 701 Rt. 703 to West Virginia line 133 1.01 miles GA 04/98 8 695 1.09 to 2.3 miles north Rt. 522 89 1.21 miles GA UN/SH 9 695 2.3 miles north Rt. 522 to WVA 89 0.9 miles GA UN/SH 10 692 Rt. 600 Rt. 671 143 2.6 miles GA UN/SH 11 625 Rt. 624 Rt. 635 102 0.5 miles BC UN/SH 12 692 Rt. 671 to West Virginia line 58 0.7 miles GA UN/SH 13 633 Rt. 625 Rt. 11S 106 1.4 miles OP/BC UN/SH 14 696 Rt. 522N Rt. 694 84 1.3 miles GA UN/SH 15 638 Rt. 625 Rt. 759 84 0.8 miles BC UN/SH 16 629 Rt. 608 to 1.15 miles east Rt.622 139 3.05 miles BC UN/SH 17 636 Rt. 709 Rt. 735 49 0.6 miles OP UN/SH 18 811 Rt.671 to 0.45 miles north (671) 128 0.25 miles OP UN/SH 19 679 0.3 miles west Rt. 608 to 0.5 miles east Rt. 600 98 2.5 miles GA UN/SH 11 1993 - 1994 Road Improvement Plan 0-. 1993 - 1994 SIX YEAR NEW HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Continued) RANK ROUTE FROM TO ADT DIST MAGIS AD.DAT 20 734 addition of 1 mile 85 1 mile GA UN/SH 21 704 Rt. 683 to West Virginia line 126 3.3 miles BC UN/SH 22 676 0.83 mile south Rt.671 to Rt.677 86 0.87 miles GA UN/SH 23 644 Rt. 50E to Clarke County line 152 0.81 miles SH UN/SH 24 634 Rt. 635 Rt. 11S 135 0.25 miles OP UN/SH 25 733 Rt. 50W Rt. 707 80 1.3 miles BC UN/SH NOTE: Route 777 is proposed to be hardsurfaced during the construction of Route 522 South if funds are available. If funds are not available, Route 777 will be included as a new hardsurface road improvement project. ABBREVIATIONS: ADT - 1991 Average Daily Secondary Traffic Tabulation Counts. DIST - Distance of total improvement length in miles. MAGIS - Magisterial District in which hardsurfacing will occur. AD.DAT - Scheduled Advertisement Date for hardsurface road improvement project to begin. 1993 - 1994 Road Improvement Plan INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION Page -5- 1993 - 1994 INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN RANK ROUTE FROM TO DESCRIPTION MAGIS F/Y 1 659 At 0.3 miles SW of Rt7 (N side) bridge over Red Bud Run ST 93/94 2 622 Rt. 37 Rt. 620 150 lbs. cold mix BC 93/94 3 681 0.82 to 1.1 miles N of Rt. 685 overflow pipe (Brush Cr.) GA 93/94 4 648 Rt.631 to 0.1 miles N of Rt.631 spot widen BC 93/94 5 681 Rt. 685 Rt. 690 spot widen & tree removal GA 93/94 6 604 0.1 mile N to 0.05 mile S Rt.714 relocate curve & intersec. BC 93/94 7 709 Rt.735 to 0.92 miles W Rt.735 widen surface OP U/S 8 627 West of Town of Middletown improve curve sight dist. OP/BC U/S 9 631 Rt. 277 Rt. 628 .165 lbs. S-5 OP/BC U/S 10 608 spot widen and tree removal along unpaved sections of Rt. 608 GA U/S 11 608 At 2.57 miles north of Rt. 600 bridge over Furnace Run BC U/S 12 701 Rt. 700 Rt. 703 widen/improve shoulders GA U/S 13 603 Rt. 55 to 0.3 miles south (Rt. 55) relocate intersection BC U/S 14 739 Rt, 672 to West Virginia line 165 lbs. cold mix GA U/S 15 707 Rt. 50W Rt. 733 spot widening BC U/S 16 733 Rt. 50W Rt, 707 spot widening BC U/S 17 622 At intersection of Rt. 620 bridge over Opequon Cr. BC U/S ABBREVIATIONS: MAGIS - Magisterial District in which incidental construction project will occur. F/Y - Fiscal year in which incidental construction project will occur. � F f 1993-1994 LARD RFA J SiT CE `moo. > ` IMPROVEMENTS �r PYtOO ..� . � \ • 9 f 2 41 y }� 1 (� -In �, •:a L' ^ e J/'—"-��1 � _ � �� i�`f �` � �",.,'r Vr�r< � ._ h // ! r s � Ezn a ••( _ d W /�/ ..�� ! � �...1�/j-. " �� `( •�•x+/ � - 1L. 1 u u.�.� ' �!� E *�l�E +eV, C�, `b7y� ^ ` r• ` 1 iii 6:91 � � .i� � ! �_✓w 1j• .� �/ � � ` ,23 �; "�'� �, � �r _ / � i i/ � il-' -�� "•l t /Q-� y*fes � � 'i`°' �_ `� ��% _r a .ao 'y 4zr siv-i -Al TJ`�''_t9 + ,. of .J ''_� �,J �i %�� •��f-' 8�' .J1�lj.� -.�I , 17^7 1... .��k.tre•„ U.. — / �Ytawc wASwMGi� • �i; � •w.iJ CZ,(' d �%J� -a I •�i� _• i �r k'ob" \�_ '• I" y l\ l Al 1 5 s N I �r v a Si :' .z/�l may' _, .t �`y:l �'r—�� •��.a ..a. w... � F r 1993-1994 MAJOR ROA -v := 1 IMPROVEMENT IJ P i � f � p i %; � � `� a 411 L q•�..7.'\ � � 9 v a� ..a1 4 / I•Y-l;s ae..„ami m� ; /� S- : T�� ` �� ✓ "rte ��,�-l' -\ � 1\\ \ r' ��, Gi JYI' �` � ar+r�''_2' II .s+y',�, � . •- •'tel F-717, al I J Dm �/ / •f! J :� etzl '�~- a�.. its@_ i / M1 17lug /rt;ACE,..sl To. _ `• ; .� m Cdl i„1- ••l .o. rloRJL i(MiT II moi. 0, 0 U n ...... P/C Review Date: 10/07/92 P/C Review Date: 10/21/92 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #012-92 JILL HOLDEN Cottage Occupation Book Binding LOCATION: Two miles beyond Cedar Grove Road on Route 654 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER 21000OA0000780 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential and agricultural PROPOSED USE: Cottage Industry -- book binding REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation• No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Fire Marshal: Approval of this CUP will have no impact on fire/rescue resources, therefore no conditions are requested by this agency. Inspections Department• Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building code and Section 303, Use Group B (Business) of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Other codes that apply are title 28 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Page 2 Jill Holden CUP Facilities. Permit required would be a change of use on the existing building and a certificate of occupancy issues. Health Department: Proposed use for one worker, Ms. Holden, who resides in the house. Sanitary facilities are adequate for proposed use. Health Dept. has no objection. If business. expands in the future and required more employees, drainfield would need to be expanded accordingly, obtaining necessary permits. Planning Department: The Cat Tail Run Bookbindery is operated by Mrs. Holden with no other employees and no plans to have additional employees. Most of her work is dealing with the restoration of old books and produces no waste, noise or traffic. Most of the work is picked up from various institutions and then delivered when completed. Mrs. Holden defines her bookbinding as a peaceful and solitary operation. Her decision to go forward with this application was based on her desire to maintain the existing cottage occupation sign she has along Route 654. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OCTOBER 7, 1992 PC MEETING: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Signage will be limited to ordinance requirements for a cottage occupation sign. 2. Any expansion of the residence to specifically accommodate this use will require a new conditional use permit. PUBLIC HEARING OF 10/07 NOT HELD DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM. Submittal Deadline P / C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA /I - 7 - e" - 1. Anrlicant (The applicant if the owner ,><, other) NAME: J 1 L L- �ko CD ADDRESS: C�Ovr- W1i vla��2 VA- ZZ(�oo 3 TELEPHONE /&(,-? - 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: !ls'e Co, . kn rn o+-er-) M h " 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions) 2 ova aim 4. The property has a road frontage of 13 D O feet and a depth of 1900 feet and consists of • S 3 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by--jji I1I� tin as evidenced by deed from 77rjjWj&5& 4- j b recorded (previous w oner) in deed book no. ?_ on page =7(4 registry of the County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identificat Magisterial District Cq a,t,ne Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: North A -j USE East South West n No. .-1 o ao OA O O 00-78o > o r0 1�6C��MC� Pq2 D page -2- CUP Application August, 1990 8. The type of use proposed is consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) ROTI 9. It is -proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: _ We 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property sought to he permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME C is xl:k E k?.a6 e+t i _' Address �.{., ,X• yZg we nch2 eT Property ID -1' 2.10Do 01� (`JOLO O 83rJ C eV eJ �13� rti.t t n C' . jnL7 � E. Address �4 . 17 �X • 41 S -W, ach e'er Property ID# 21 �o o QA e)l actY-% + K&4hrtArl Address 7-266 CtcLar Grace . '1 JMC hPfi7- Z2&0 Property ID# Zi ofla Oh O c, o o-7 (. O N25sai rQd+., iTtG�Iari L • + McIa.nlf- G. Address • "$x. y17- 1,.1,nckealcr Property ID# zrflao OA 00 0 -7 0 Kepl i n q erJ (Zo 6 es- 7D. 4 &Lr Address '�.�-, S x y Zd W1,% c h eS`�cr Property ID# ZI�Do dADOQOS2-o tn,C C&r4 Joseph £s-�Lfe Yo l ra.6 ut la. Me- Ca.r?y Address 72.2 �'. Gore- Ave. Qrlar Ja FL 3Z$0(4 Property ID# -2-1t),00 0A-oo p S o NAME ChYis tC3tnSoN�. 4lQVQl1 Pobet+ C . E! jr. Address Property Address �S'D ID# HC Senses. -21000 OPr 0 O a o SyrJ Property ID# Z too c bac po p o l cn o E3ur�nsJ Wylie 7 G%61M&2, p W; fey) Robe_rf Alan Address ! 53 I Eol echeo e AY�►. Co lLtm6U 5 GA Property ID# O3 3190'7 21 von p Iso Address2So S Mts4yy11 J � Meadow fir. tA1fticAeckr-- Property ID# 21 Dam 03 00 001210 4addle, -Daucl Address Property ID# 21000 0 3 00 0010 Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address , Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# page -3- CUP Application August, 1990 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. page -4- CUP Application August, 1990 12. Additional comments, if any: i ppero-te 0- and bookb-* d cihere 6 ook . f - ern to1 m IS m C�td 1. T 1 LIv I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing.. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner �✓ • ;>? : J \./cT/riy�.J Owners' Mailing Address 2160 QZ&I- 61 Owners' Telephone No. W,n e,� 1 � 21 22 k44 / 4 i �s a 29 34 32 3� A B 30 . 6 36 pQ 37 58 57 31 59 61 S OR.C. 64/ � 4G� 1 9,7.E p 63 r dltq}At2J Qe .� 38 �` 1 40 67 40 q 2 O 4 y 3 2 f 62 ` 22 6 7 Iry I B � 56 69 2 t8 11 1 55 17 21 15 f IS S \ 2 T 16 4 3 70 f �tl�� -_ N r, 71 54 41 Q '�7c 73 i 74 � 53 8547- 52 347-52 ? �y 13 19 �?�r�„ , OIC / e Stont 12 15 hurO 42 43 44 / 41aA b� 78 11 21 SI r -W8 M. 704 C4 / / )% T3i Q AD Put• l4'. • .a 7 t6 '3 �u 9 a 17 48 8 y 79 T 6 80 83 �� ch BOA 4 5 �45 45 471 811 D2 t,/ _ / 3 - P/C Review Date: 08/05/92 P/C Review Date: 09/02/92 P/C Review Date: 10/07/92 P/C Review Date: 10/21/92 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #009-92 Charles & Faye Grady Dog Kennel LOCATION: Route 11 south of Stephens City off of Route 735 on Route 709 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER 85000OA0000130 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use - residential and dog kennel ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• land use - residential and agricultural PROPOSED USE: Dog Kennel REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), Virginia Department of Transportation• No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Fire Marshal: Any space open to public must satisfy building code for Use Group B. Approval of this CUP will not have a significant impact on Fire -Rescue resources. Inspections Department• Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 303, USE Group B, (Business) of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Other codes that apply are title 28, Code of Federal Page 2 Grady CUP Regulations, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the basis of Disability by Public Accommodation and in Commercial Facilities. Permit required would be a change of use on existing building. Health Department: Sanitary facilities adequate for operators of kennel. Kennel operation approximately 60 - 70 dogs. State Waster Control Board has ultimate authority over dog waste disposal. No objection at this point. Planning Department: Application is for an existing, illegally operating, kennel. Mr. and Mrs. Grady previously had a conditional use permit for a kennel and were unaware that the County required a new conditional use permit when they moved. The kennel is approximately 1500 feet from the rear and side property lines and is screened from the front by a natural berm. Since the kennel operation is for .the breeding and sale of dogs, there will not be overnight boarding of dogs, other than their own, to cause noise. And because of the substantial distance from other properties, noise nor odor should be a problem. Staff believes approval of the conditional use permit would not change the character of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AUGUST 5 1992: Approval, with the following conditions: 1. All review agencies comments must be complied with. 2. Change in use or expansion of facilities to accommodate this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. 3. All associated materials shall be stored indoors. 4. If a sign is displayed, a sign permit will be required. 5. All requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Code of Virginia pertaining to the operation of dog kennels must be complied with. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUGUST 5, 1992: Tabled unanimously for 30 days in order to determine if Mr. and Mrs. Grady a---- 1 '+ t a a.1 7.7 a Office. f �n co:r�p�iarce rr � ter. ..hs co„ceras o� �.�e Dog rYarue:,s �f � ice . (Absent - J. Marker and R. Carper) Page 3 Grady CUP PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF SEPTEMBER 2 1992: Tabled unanimously for 30 days in order to work out additional problems. (Absent - J. Marker and B. Wilson). PUBLIC HEARING OF 10/07 NOT HELD DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting-9� APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. A olicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: ADDRESS:. I c TELEPHONE o 1� L C 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: - G«-C'-�'_ - 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions) 4. The property has depth of (Please be exact) a road frontage of O%Jc feat feet and consists of �20, c /& and a acres. 5. The property is owned by a -� h �_ �j-o,a`• .� as evidenceu by deeu from C AI_yt. C%ii�.Cl�� recti--ded (previous owner) in deed book no. on pageregistry of the County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 3 — S�' � r Pr � 1-3 Magisterial District ? ,J Current Zoning �Q U 7. Adjoining Property: ZONING USE North \e5tc�i✓r�-c�, East South West ZONING page -2- CUP Application August, 1990 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) C.) >� e 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: IU D -!_•- 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in. front of ( across street from) the property sought to be permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME cJ old 1 rL Address�� ` G jx- Property ID# Address l1�jo ' Property IDT . - - X5:5- A - 1,3 Address '--R4. o A �l z,�5 Pronerty IDT oil Addres4+ Property IDT Address Property ID# Address Property ID# page -3- CUP Application August, 1990 I1. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. a� 1I "V page -4- CUP Application August, 1990 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we.), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address -+ I C) a � 6 OunersI ielephon t= No. �L�,�-, �,.�. 'r, 25. o4 � �• ��`� - c� I7 � ter' _ _ � II��;�� 3 At loll RA '11- '��• r�-i .,,� � t,` u' `�•//`� ./ .`wry. .. �y�'� ��`� � �,,,• • J• --:~ :'l �•��J/yam` �f� l `a -� � �--+ y. k� �� i :� i ' � Fir <3 .• 4 \ � , � a l � • - © ��/` Ate. `�� +/i�'',^ � ` •~ / r � ��, �j U 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 Director Re: Discussion with Professors Hofstra and Geier on Archeological Survey Results Date: October 9, 1992 The second Archeological Survey to be conducted by Professors Hofstra and Geier has been completed. In order to save postage, copies of the report will be distributed at the meeting. Professors Hofstra and Geier have requested time on the agenda to review with you their findings and recommendations. KCT/slk 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission Members From: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director�G/ Re: Virginia Scenic Byways Program//;,, Information and Recommendation from Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee Date: October 6, 1992 As you know the Commission was asked by Citizens for a Quality Community to endorse the designation of a number of rural routes in Frederick County as State Scenic Byways. The Commission in turn asked the Comprehensive Plans and Policies Committee to investigate the program and come back to the Commission with a recommendation. Attached is an informational memo concerning the program which was supplied to the Committee along with other relevant materials. The Committees feeling was that the program did not accomplish anything that the County could not do through the creation and adoption of local regulations. The committee was also concerned about the possibility of a planned road improvement being delayed due to a decision being made at the State level to acquire additional right-of-way to protect a designated byway. It was therefore the consensus of the Committee that the County should not endorse the proposed designation. If there are questions concerning this matter please contact either Lanny Bise or myself. KCT/slk attachment 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 M E M O R A N D U M To: Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee From: Lanny Bise, Planner I Subject: Virginia Byways Date: September 23, 1992 Based on the discussions of our September 14th meeting, I have contacted several localities, along with Phil Baker, of the Environmental Division of VDOT, and Bill Bushman, Resident Engineer for our district, regarding the Virginia Byway Program. Listed below is the Virginia Byway Policy, the process for selection, and some information concerning what other localities are doing. The Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted as policy, the following recommendation of the Virginia Outdoor Plan for upgrading Virginia's Highway System, "Everything that can be done within the limitations of available funds should be done toward providing wide rights-of-way, adopting corridor zoning and designing for visual enjoyment." The table below outlines the steps to be followed in the selection of a Scenic Highway or Virginia Byway: STEP ACTION 1 VDOT and the Director of Conservation and Recreation (CR) initiate a study of a potential Scenic Highway or Virginia Byway. This study may be initiated as a result of the Virginia Outdoor Plan, a request from local citizens or the local government. 2 VDOT and CR make an on-site inspection of the route to determine if it meets the physical criteria. 3 CR obtains assurances from the local governing body that it is interested in scenic designation. 4 CR determines that local zoning and comprehensive planning programs of the locality are consistent with the management objectives of the Byway Program. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 04, 5 VDOT secures approval of the designation from the local governing body. 6 VDOT advises CR when approval from the governing body is received. 7 CR recommends designation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). 8 CTB designates the road as a Scenic Highway or Virginia Byway. 11 I contacted Bill Bushman, Resident Engineer for Staunton District, and asked his impression of the Virginia Byway designation. He stated that he thought a Byway designation could delay reconstruction by adding an additional step, which could take 60 to 90 days. I contacted Phil Baker, who is in charge of the Virginia Byway Program for VDOT, and told him of my discussion with Bill Bushman. Mr. Baker stated that improvements done on a Virginia Byway are treated just as they are for a regular route. There are no additional advertising or public hearing requirements. He also stated there are no additional costs incurred during the design process in order to maintain the intent of the designation. I also asked Mr. Baker whether there is an additional right-of-way acquisition required for improvements on Byways. He stated that VDOT does not require it, however, if citizens of the locality contact VDOT and complain enough about planned improvements being detrimental to the intent of the Byway designation, our district's Resident Engineer can require additional right-of-way. The County would get a chance to have input on this decision. This being the case, the requirement of additional right-of-way would increase the design costs, thus impacting our Six Year Road Improvement Plan. I contacted three localities to obtain information on what they are doing with Virginia Byways. Listed below are my findings: Albemarle County Albemarle County currently has approximately 82 miles of road designated as Virginia Byways, with most of them being designated during the 1970s. They do not have any restrictions associated with the designations. They also do not have a process for notifying landowners located along a stretch of road once it has L_, been ii®ml�ici Feu . Loudoun County Loudoun County currently has seven routes designated as Virginia Byways (mileage total wasn't available). They were designated approximately four years ago. There are no restrictions associated 3 with the designation. However, the County is currently considering having all new development applications on Byways go through a review committee. Loudoun County has no formal procedure set up for notification to landowners on a proposed Byway. The County has used the Byway designation to solicit more sensitive design considerations on some Byway improvements. Clarke County Clarke County has approximately 27 miles of road designated as Virginia Byways. All but one of the Byways received their designations in 1989. There are no restrictions associated with the designation other than increased front setbacks. Clarke County has no formal procedure set up for notification to landowners on a proposed Byway. None of the localities I spoke with reported any problems in terms of getting road improvements done or property owners objecting to the Virginia Byways designation. It appears that Mr. Bakers ascertation that there is little or no impact on State Routes with Virginia Byways designation is true. Another factor which supports this claim is the fact that Route 723 in Frederick County has been designated a Virginia Byway since July 14, 1977. I hope you have found this information helpful. I am available to answer any questions you might have. LCB/slk SL'I"r—'-ARY OF QiRG=3TY,. BYWrYS Date of LencIi t Desicr_at_on Route( Ccun —7 -n Miles Jure 20, 1574 193 Fairfax ZZ Aug 21, 1975 5 C_tv Of Ric'— cnd, Her:Z i c0 C:zarles City Ja=es City Counties & City of WilliaTsburg Sti Aur* 19 1976 _ 20 , Alb_na= _e I7 Aug 1.9, 197o" 6 Albemarle & Nelson 35 Aug 19, 1976 151 Nelscn. ,6 Aug 19, 1976 56 Nelscn 1a Jar: 271 2.977 39 Rockbridge 20 July 14, 1977 723 Frederick & Clarke 10 Oct 27, 1977 39 Rcckbridge & Bath 36 Jure 2 , 1979 623 Tazewell 0 Dec 17, 1982 250 Albemarle & Nelscn 17 sect I5, I983 802 Fau :tli e_pew e_ �, r r- & C� 25 243, 626 may 15, 19886 785 Mor.tgcner_,- & Rcanoke T3 Jan 15, 1987 6, 650 Fluvanra, Gccchland, Herrico 60 ja7l. 15 19370 _ 1I A-merst & Rcck-"ride 3:) JL'iV 16, 1587 601 Albe::arle & Orange 1 614, 676 Nov 19, I,o7 20 A�be-arl. & Orarge 36 22, 231 131 665 Lcudcu^ Cour.zy 7I 662, 690 734, 719, 704 GeV IQ% 0191 �_? /DPD�C!Y1Tj :.:rim SLi!"��R`r Or DIRG��1'�i B"ice, rS (Ccntinue�j Date of Desic-mation Route Aug is, 1988 231 July 20, 1985 Feb I5, 1990 May 17, 1990 May 17, 1.990 Dec 201 1990 Sept 23, 1991 659 617, 673 & 711 624, 651, 633, 620, 652, 653, 628, 622, 6271 608, 612, 626, & 255 606, 623, 623, 647 42, 43, 159 311, 615, 616, 621 667,727 62-5,666 - Ccur!ty Orange, Madiscn & Racczh_nncck Halifax County Chaster.fle?d, Powhatan City cf Richmond Clarke Cc Ra=oaharncck All-echanv, Betetcurt, Craic, Giles, Roaroke, & Tazewell Counties TOTAL MILES: 813.5 TOTAL LOCALITIZS: 32 Lencth (ia M; lvs 39 15 25 37.5 1? 172 12.0 813.5 NOT Z: you will find these byway names noted in ALL CAPS and the byways hichlichted in green on the enclosed Vi-rginia State Highway map. T2pv ICI/f11 1a -i 0' 'HICN.;R. ..Irerz An'41NIS T RATION NATURAL HERIT.kCZ PLAti, iNG.ANTIRECRE.�TTONZSSouRCcs SOIL.aND '.WATcR CONSE-3V.k1'0!v S-ATZ ?ARM T TIE -1 DEPART1iENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION DIVISIOLN OF PLkNNING AND RECRZ.1,TION R.E.80URCZ5 �r C411�. Art Buehler, Division Director -A 203 Governor Srse-c, Suite 326 TDD (304) 786-2121 Richmond. Virginia 23219.2010 (804) 786.2556 FAX: (804) 76-61.4I June 5, 1992 Mr. John R. Riley, Administrator ZRD-92 Frederick county P. C. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: Some time ago, a citizen group from Frederica County, Citizens =or a Quality Community, requested that a number of roads in the .runty be considered for designation as Virginia Byways. At the request of this group, a review team comprised of personnel from my staff and the Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Environ- mental Division went to the County to survey and photograph the roads identified in their letter. The review team has also consulted the files of the Department of Historic Resources, reviewed applicable traffic data in VDOT's files and studied the COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN, Frederick County, Virginia, dated April 1991. Of the roads reviewed, the team is prepared to recommend Virginia Byway designation for the following segments: * Route 692 from Route 522 to Route 600; then Route 600 to the intersection with Route 55. * Route 739 from the West Virginia State line to the intersection with Route 522. * Route 628 from Route 11 (in Winchester) to the intersection with Route 622 in the Marlboro Community, then Route 622 to Route 11 (creating a loop route). Before the Department of Conservation and Recreation proceeds any further, we would like to obtain a resolution of endorsement from B38810/MER Mr. John R. Riley June 5, 1992 Page 2 the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for the inclusion cf these roads into the Virginia Byway system. Attached is general information regarding the Virginia Byway program. If there are specific questions requiring more informaticn, please contact Derral Jones of my staff; (804) 786-5046. Yours truly, Art Buehler AB:CDJ/br Attachments: 3 cc: Earl Robb Virginia Department of Transportation. Martha A. Wolfe Citizens for a Quality Community B38810/MER s for a Quality Community ` P- O- Bax 2558, Wfnctesfer, VA 22601 December 9, 1991 N, Art Buehler Director, Division of Planning and Recreational Resources 203 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Bueler: We, the members of Citizens for a Quality Community in Frederick County and Winchester would like to recommend the following roads as additions to Virg byways : . inia's system of scenic 1 . "The Valley Pike". U. S. I I , in two sections: south from Bartanville to Ceda-7- Creek and north from Stephenson to the 'ties It. Virginia line. 2. "Braddock's Road", Rt. 672, from Charles Town to Cedar Grdve. 3. Rt. 600, the length of the county. 4. Rts. 628 and 622 in a loop from Winchester to Marlboro and back. 5. Rt. 739, Apple Pie Ridge Road, from 522 to the. West Virginia line. 6. Rt. 608 from Rt. 522 to Mountain Falls. ` I have enclosed a map of Frederick County and have high -- lighted the roads in green. May I suggest you contact two of our members to help you follow the history of the Valley' Fike and Braddcck's Road (Sir John's Road) through Frederick County: Linden (3utch) `Fravel, 703-869-4494; and Ben Ritter at the Handley Library, 703--662- 9041, We are .anxious to have Frederick County's rural. resources recognized and feel this will be a step in that direction. Thank ou for your considerations. Sincerely, BST/enclosure Martha A. 411olfe rZ' of Planning and MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert Watkins, Director - Sim SUBJECT: Planning Department Work and Budget DATE: October 7, 1992 Time has come again (so soon?) to work on the Planning Department budget for next year. I thought we could have a discussion on the Department and the work that is continuing. To provide you information, I have included the following: 1. A draft of the section of the County Management Study dealing with the Planning Department - The study recommendations include the following: The need to increase staff capability in graphics and mapping Increased attention to the capital improvements planning process Need for greater involvement by departments and individuals in GIS development Need for additional ad hoc legal advice. We will need to address these issues. 2. Current Work - Work related to certain types of development review (masterplans and rezortings) is at a low level. As can be expected, other work has arisen that needs to be done and is keeping the staff very busy. There is still plenty to do. We have included a description of some of our work areas and what each staff person is doing. The initial house numbering work continues and will largely be completed by the end of the month. However, maintenance work will continue. This project has given us new opportunities and responsibilities. We now have automated base maps for the County that will provide a good basis for the development of a geographic information system. But we are now also the mapping agency for the County, producing and maintaining the tax maps that were previously produced by the state. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Page -2- Work/Budget Memo October 7, 1992 Zoning enforcement work continues at a high level. It is important to realize that with our current staff we are able to do plan review and zoning enforcement in a much more effective and complete manner than a few years ago. Daily requests for information continue at a high level. Work continues on the action program prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Budget Trends - We have provided information on Department Budget trends during the past six years. Our approved budget this year was actually smaller than last year. In the information provided it is slightly higher because of the hold over of the funding for the GIS I study which was encumbered last year but not spent. The Board also allocated an additional $10,000 for part time help for house numbering this year. There was a dramatic increase in the budget in 1989-90 and 1990-91 which was due to funding for the consultant engineer. Engineering is now being carried out by the County Engineer. We expect to request no increase in overall funding for the next year with one possible exception. We will be receiving this month a draft plan for a county -wide Geographic Information System to improve the use of maps and geographic information. Any requested increases will be associated with the implementation of the GTS plan much of which will possibly be outside of the Planning Department budget. We will have a worksession on the GIS plan at a future time. POTENTIAL AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT Public Participation - The new format for the public meetings potentially represents a large step for the Planning Department and Planning CommLz orz GIS - I believe that our biggest planning flaw is the lack of a consistently maintained database monitor development and to support planning and decision making. Capital Improvement Planning - The Planning Department, County Administrators Ojjice� Finance Department, County Agencies, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors need to work to improve the level of planning for major County facilities RWW/slk attachment 1 . COUNTY MANAGEMENT STUDY TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM DISTRIBUTION COUNTY of FREDERICK Stephen F. Owen Assistant County Administrator 703/665-5653 AX: 703/667-0370 l`�� i•i V 1992 Stephen F. Owen, Assistant County Administrator, Draft Frederick County Management Study Report September 10, 1992 The draft section from the management study for your department is attached for your review and comment. Please let John or me know as soon as possible, in writing, of any corrections, clarifications, or questions that you might have. Thank you. SFO:clt Attachment: as stated DISTRIBUTION: Ambrogi, Lawrence R. Deoms, Gary L. Didawick, Michael A. Doran, James M. Kelican, Ann K. Mowitt, Peter Orndoff, C. William, Jr. Owens, Thomas W. Ratcliff, Barbara W. Rudolph, Esten O. Jr. Strawsnyder, Harvey E. Jr., P.E. Tyson, Charles B. Wa er, Joseph A. tkins, Robert W. Williamson, Robert T. Wilmot, June M. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Public Administration Service 8301 Greensboro Drive, Suite 420, McLean, Virginia 22102 69 Planning and Development Department The primary purpose of the Planning and Development Department is to maintain an effective planning process to manage growth and development in the County. This is accomplished through the development and update of a comprehensive plan and the administration of various land development laws and ordinances. The department is staffed with 11 employees and is authorized to spend $488,187 in fiscal year 1992-93. Expenditures are expected to be offset by about $132,600 in service -generated fees. Table 21 compares staffing, expenditures, and revenues for the past few years. Table 21 PERSONNEL, EXPENDITURES, AND REVENUES PLANNING DEPARTMENT JEIndicator 1 1990 1991 1992 1993 Personnel 7 11 11 11 Expenditures (in thousands) $574 $724 $559 $488 Revenue (in thousands) $240 $176 $133 As this table shows, personnel of the department have remained at 11 over the past three years after 4 positions (3 planners and a clerk typist) were added in 1991. A recent proposal to add a graphic technician position was not funded. Total expenditures for the department have been declining since 1991 through reductions in contractual services and capital expenditures. Revenues have been declining in recent years due to the slowdown in development. In addition to the expenditures shown in this table, the County makes modest contributions to programs related to the planning and development function: $ 4,620 Zoning Board 17,390 Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission Public Administration Service Staifng 8301 Greensboro Drive, Suite 420, McLean. Virginia 22102 70 The department is staffed with seven planning and technical positions and four clerical positions as follows: 1 - Planning and Development Director 1 - Deputy Director 1 - Planner U 2 - Planner I 1 - Zoning Administrator 1 - Mapping and Graphics Manager 1 - Office Manager 3 - Clerk Typists Organization The department is organized into three working groups under the director: (1) the Deputy Director, (2) the Zoning Administrator, and (3) the Office Manager. Although junior planning personnel may work under either the Deputy Director or the Zoning Administrator on a project -by -project basis, the normal reporting relationships are as follows: • The Deputy Director is responsible for most planning and graphics work. Reporting to him are the Mapping and Graphics Manager, the Planner II, and, on occasion, the two Planner I's. • The Zoning Administrator is responsible for administering the zoning ordinance and handling complaints under that and related codes and ordinances. Reporting to him are the two Planner I's. • The Office Manager is responsible for all clerical functions of the office. Reporting to her are the three Clerk Typists. • The Director provides overall direction to the department. Reporting to him are the Deputy Director, the Zoning Administrator, and the Office Manager. In addition, the Director also has planning responsibilities in certain areas such as housing, certain transportation plans, management of the geographic information system, administration of the departmental computer local area network, and public participation and education. if'rog_rams The department is responsible for a number of continuing and ad hoc programs. Following is a brief discussion of some of the most important programs. Public Administration Service 8301 Greensboro Drive, Suite 420, McLean, Vircrinia 22102 71 Comprehensive Planning. The department annually reviews and updates the comprehensive plan. Included in the review for the 1992-93 year are a study to review alternative rural community center sewage disposal methods, development of Route 50 East and Route 7 corridor and interchange plans, examination of ways to encourage the development of affordable I housing in the County, coordination with the Town of Stephens City in the updating by that city in its comprehensive plan, work toward the development of uniform population projection methods that can be used by all county agencies, assistance to the Shawneeland Sanitary District Advisory committee in its planning efforts, and review of the Eastern Road Plan. Development Review. The department is responsible for the review of various development proposals, including rezonings, conditional use permits, master development plans, site plans, subdivisions, variances, land disturbance permits, and building permits. House Numbering and G=eographic Information System. The house numbering system is nearing completion. A consultant was hired to develop a digitized base map and to assign house numbers to each parcel of land in the County. The product has been turned over to the County and the department is completing the process of making adjustments and correcting errors in the initial - allocations. A consultant has been engaged to conduct a needs assessment and make recommendations for the development of a geographic information system, GIS, for the County. Departments have been interviewed and a report is expected soon. Transportation Planning. The department will continue work on various transportation issues such as the Route 37 Location Study, the application of the model developed in the Winchester Area Transportation Study to project traffic impacts of development proposals, and supporting the work of the joint city/county transportation planning committee. Ordinance Review. The department will review the 1989 Zoning Ordinance giving particular attention to the R-4 Planned Development District and the use of conditional use permits. It will also review specific development issues as they occur. Historic Preservation. The department will continue to evaluate sites and implement the preservation policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Capital Improvement Plan. The department has continuing responsibility to assemble capital improvement requests from the various departments and perform the staff work for the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee to maintain the CIP. Complaint Investigation. The department investigates complaints concerning alleged zoning violations, sign regulations, junked cars, weeds, trash and other nuisances. It should be pointed out that the department follows the county policy of only responding to complaints in these matters rather than initiating action on its own authority. Information. The department acts as a source of information for the public and various departments of the county government. Public Administration Service 8301 Greensboro Drive, Suite 420, McLean, Virginia 22 1021 72 Advice. The department provides advice, recommendations, and information to the Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, and the County Board of Supervisors in planning matters. Relationships. The department shares information, cooperates with, and maintains relationships with a number of regional governmental and quasi -governmental agencies such as the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Winchester City Planning Department, the County Economic Development Commission, the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission, and other agencies. Streneths and Opportunities for Improvement Strengths. 1. The department is competently led and adequately staffed with planning professionals and clerical support. It is flexibly organized to allow it to respond to changing requirements. 2. It conducts a comprehensive program of relevant activities and important projects meeting long-term requirements and short-term demands. t 3. The department has demonstrated an ability to "fast-track" critical development proposals that has given the County an edge in attracting desirable industry to the area. It provides valuable close support to the Economic Development Commission. 4. The planning tools --plans, ordinances, procedures, and systems --are modern, appropriate, and appear to be satisfactory. We saw no glaring weakness in these tools. Policies and ordinances are reviewed and updated on an ongoing, timely basis. 5. The department has essentially completed a comprehensive street renumbering system - 6. It has embarked on a study to develop a geographic information system, GIS, for the County. 7. It has a good local area network, LAN, of microcomputer systems and is making good use of those systems for word processing, data base management, graphics, and mapping. r Public Administration Service 8301 Greensboro Drive, Suite 420, McLean, Virginia 22102 73 OPRgrtunities for Improvement I. The Mapping and Graphics Manager has been preoccupied with the street numbering system and will probably become preoccupied with developing and maintaining the geographic information system should one be developed for the County. He has not had time to perform the graphics work needed by the planning department and other departments of the government. As a result, he has been doing some of this work at home on his own time and some of this work has fallen to the public relations coordinator in the Parks and Recreation Department who also does not have sufficient time for these extra duties. 2. The capital improvement planning process does not seem to be taken seriously by the county departments. Written submissions for capital improvements vary in sufficiency from department to department and in at least one case, (construction of a maintenance building at the landfill), an expensive proposal was added to the list without any written documentation. There appears to be little analysis of the proposals which seem to be considered in isolation without a comprehensive view of countywide needs or how one department's requests or needs could be met by cooperation among departments or by alternative proposals. When developed, the capital improvement plan does not seem to carry much weight with the county board which routinely delays funding of the requests. There is no permanent funding mechanism for carrying out these plans. 3. Cooperation between the Planning Department and the Inspections Department, although reportedly improving, still needs to be improved further. There seems to be some confusion over jurisdiction in the review of zoning and setback requirements, in giving out information regarding these matters, and in field inspections concerning these matters. 4. The use of the computeru.ed library information system containing a catalog of magazines in the department library may not warrant its upkeep. 5. In interviews with other county departments, we met a number of people who might be able to benefit from a geographic information system, GIS, who were not aware, or only vaguely aware, of the project - 6. Although the Commonwealth Attorney's Office provides good support on large matters such as litigation, it is reportedly not always available to respond on a timely basis with legal advice on day-to-day questions. r Public Administration Service 8301 Greensboro Drive. Suite 420, McLean, Virginia 22102 74 Recommendations 1. The department needs to increase its staff capability in the area of graphics and computerized mapping. This could be met, as the Planning Department proposes, by hiring a graphics design technician. Alternatively, it could be met by re -arranging some duties of the existing staff. At least two planners are familiar with Autocad, and others could learn, and the salaries of the junior planners are generally in the same range as the proposed graphics design technician. If the County implemented the recommendation to employ an engineering technician (as included in the section on the Engineering and Inspections department), the time of one of the Planner I's now spent performing field work related to drainage complaints and soil erosion would be available for re -assignment. The junior planners could assist with graphics and mapping work as needed. Given the current relatively low level of development work in the County, it would not seem prudent to increase the size of the planning department at this time. The department seems to have a sufficiently large staff to handle the work load. In planning, less than half of the workload (such as reviewing subdivision proposals and building plans, handling re -zoning and variance requests, etc.) is driven by outside forces. The rest is discretionary, determined by an assessment of needs for studies and projects, not all of which are of equal importance or urgency. Work can always expand to fit the staff allotted to it. It can also contract to fit the available staff, delaying those projects deemed less important or urgent than others. The present size of the planning department seems about right -- sufficient to handle both the development review work and planning for the future. It can possibly even absorb a modest increase in development activity by rearranging work priorities without too much damage to long-range planning efforts. 2. Increased attention needs to be given to the capital improvement planning process. Adequately justified and documented written proposals should be required. Careful analysis should be performed on the requests taking into account countywide concerns, costs, benefits, and trade-offs. A realistic plan that can be funded politically should be developed. Some kind of a revolving capital improvements fund, Wath appr.n.priat..^.n.� every year, should be estab'Ushec This could help level out year-to-year demands. It could be established with seed money from a bond issue. I Public Administration Service 8301 Greensboro Drive, Suite 420, McLean, Virginia 22102 75 3. The Planning and Inspection departments should continue their mutual efforts toward better communication and cooperation between their departments, particularly as it relates to responsibilities for handling zoning -related matters and drainage. Inspectors should be trained to check building setbacks and drainage requirements as part of their normal inspection routines. 4. A review should be made of the time spent on the upkeep of the automated library catalog system and the use that is made of it. If it is not sufficiently used, it should be discontinued. 5. A greater effort should be made to bring more departments and individuals into the discussion of the countywide geographic information system. 6. The need for additional, short turnaround time, ad hoc, legal advice should be documented and discussed with the commonwealth attorney. - Ways should be found to meet any important needs not now being met. 2. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CURRENT WORK CURRENT WORK FREDERICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT October 7, 1992 Despite the low level of development the Planning Department is staying busy with various activities including the following: 1. House Numbering and Tax Mapping - The traffic with the public has decreased significantly and we expect the initial, development portion of this project to be completed by the end of October. We will continue to deal with county citizens and make corrections continuously until that time. When we reach that point we will begin the normal and continuous activity of updating the information based on new subdivisions and structures and additional structures found. We will in fact be the agency that produces and maintains detailed tax mapping for the County (previously carried out by the state) . This is a completely new activity that will use staff resources from now on. We will also be producing new mylar zoning maps. 2. Ordinance Enforcement - We are currently involved with 71 active zoning violation cases. This activity has not decreased with the recession. 3. Plan Review - Rezoning review and masterplan review activities are very slow. We do have a regular flow of industrial site plans to review (which is good news) due to new industries and the expansion of existing ones. We continue with a regular flow of minor subdivisions and review all building.permits to insure that they conform with zoning regulations. Applications reviewed in 1992 include the following: 53 Minor Rural Subdivisions 23 Variances 13 CUP's 5 Master Development Plans 1 Rezoning 17 Site Plans 9 Subdivisions .1,059 Building Permits 4. Committee Support - We provide agendas with staff support and research for ten county committees, commissions and boards 1 that meet regularly. We are also supporting three non -county groups. 5. Public Information - The clerical staff estimates that we have averaged 60 phone calls and 15 walk-ins per day in 1992 from the general public to request information and assistance. 6. Rural, Community Center sewerage Study - We have been working with the Planning District Commission and the Advisory Committee on this project. This has involved a property by property survey and map work by our staff. 7. Commercial Corridor Issues - We have been working with the Chamber of Commerce Appearance Committee, Planning District Commission, and Development Review and Regulations Committee to develop information on these issues. 8. Ordinance Issues - We continue to work on various ordinance review, amendment requests and update activities. 9. Transportation - We are undertaking the installation of the Transplan/Deleuw Cather model with training to allow future impact evaluation. We are continuing to work with the WATS and Route 37 projects. The following describes some of the specific work that is being carried out by individual staff members: Director of Planning (Bob Watkins) - Department management, reporting and budgeting. Staff evaluation and supervision. Daily consultation with staff and others on work, planning issues and problem solving. Overseeing Route 37, WATS and GIS projects. Serving on LFPDC battlefield committee and working to encourage approaches to deal with the battlefield issues before the next problem occurs. Continuing and improving use of automation and data management in the department. Serving as department computer network administrator. Assisting with house numbering by dealing with consultant and by managing address listing database. Leading effort to use transportation modelling software. Developing retreat agenda and special discussion items for planning commission. Talking to public groups on planning in Frederick County. Deputy Director (Kris Tierney) - Assisting with department management and supervision. Directing comprehensive planning process and lead staff for Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee. Working on special problems such as Warrior Road. Directing Rural Community Center Sewerage Study. Directing rezoning and masterplan review activities. Directing public meetings on Comprehensive 0 Plan. Lead staff person for the Joint Transportation Committee and the Joint Committee with Stephens City. Meeting with developers to discuss initial phases of projects. overseeing historic preservation activities. Coordinating grant activities concerning historic and archeological survey. Zoning Administrator (Wayne Miller) - Directing complaint and violation response activities. Managing subdivision review. Approving minor rural subdivisions and boundary adjustments. overseeing subdivision bonding and completion subdivision streets and improvements.. Directing building permit review. Assistance with DRR subcommittee and ordinance review. Meeting with developers and landowners concerning subdivision process and zoning issues. Court testimony. Logistics for retreat. Planner II (Evan Wyatt) - Leading site planning activities. Masterplan and rezoning review. Meeting with developers to discuss site planning. Inspecting sites and issuing certificates of occupancy. Lead staff person for DRR subcommittee and ordinance review. Lead staff person for Transportation Committee. Maintenance of road improvement plans. Lead technician for transportation modelling software. Update of eastern road plan. Assisting with GIS development. Computer aided design technician for county tax mapping and house numbering. Assisting with daily public information (phone calls and walk ins). Providing permit information for reports. Assisting the Economic Development Commission. Planner II (Ron Lilley) - Lead staff person for Historic Resources Advisory Committee and Board of Zoning Appeals. Lead staff person for corridor planning and corridor appearance issues. Working with Chamber Appearance Committee and Airport Area Support Group. Plan review including rezoning, masterplan, site plan, subdivision, CUP, and building permit. Assisting with Route 37 project. Field inspections for violations and plans. Follow up communication and legal activity on violations. Assisting with GIS development and automated mapping. Assisting with daily public information (phone calls and walk ins). Planner I (Lanny Bise) - Lead staff person for Capital Improvements Plan. Lead staff person for updating and using capital facilities impact model. Lead staff person for soil erosion and sedimentation and stormwater enforcement. Maintaining environmental data on wetlands and f loodplains. Working with Shawneeland Planning Committee. Assisting with comprehensive plan update. Update of socio-economic data and assisting Economic Development Commission with market study. Plan review, including site plan, subdivision, CIP and building permit. Field work and analysis for rural community center sewerage study. Follow up communication and legal activity on violations. Assisting with automated mapping. Field inspections for violations and plans. Assisting with daily public 3 information (phone calls and walk ins). Working on annual report. Mapping and Graphics Manager (Mark Lemasters) - Lead staff person for house numbering and automated mapping efforts. GIS development and management. Publication graphics and layout. Assorted graphics for Planning Department and other agencies. Clerical Staff - Supervision of agenda preparation. Handling all correspondence and paperwork leaving department. Handling phone calls and walk ins. Maintaining and improving physical and automated files. Data input and computer operation. Managing department calendars. Collecting fees and financial record keeping. Maintenance of County Code. Providing information and publications to the public. Maintaining supplies and materials. Processing development applications. Producing minutes. Compiling information for research by staff. 4 3. PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUDGET TRENDS Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, Summary Budget Trends DESCRIPTION 1992-93 Approp. 1991-92 Expend 1990-91 Expend 1989-90 Expend 1988-89 Expend 1987-88 Expend Personnel Costs: $2,400 Printing $4,000 Advertising $5,000 Other Services Salaries $284,425 $281,800 $257,662 $204,119 $152,190 $137,925 Extra Help $14,861 $2,051 $0 $1,348 $610 $332 PC Members $24,000 $23,580 $23,760 $15,840 $13,560 $12,900 Total Personnel Costs $323,286 $307,431 $281,422 $221,307 $166,360 $151,157 Costs Total Fringe $90,89E Benefits $7,135 Non -Personnel Operating Costs: Prof. Services $41,923 Repair & Maintenance $2,400 Printing $4,000 Advertising $5,000 Other Services $0 Data Process. $352 Office Supplies $12,900 Gasoline $700 Postage and Telephone $7,000 Insurance $7,800 Copier Supl. $5,000 Books & Subs. $1,500 $75,753 $82,157 $54,895 $32,844 $30,219 $31,934 $199,435 $132,526 $7,135 $6,108 $2,762 $2,558 $1,145 $462 $1,273 $3,525 $3,727 $5,227 $3,020 $7 $3,569 $4,002 $5,230 $3,708 $4,359 $0 $110 $461 $0 $750 $1.,409 $24,830 $20,585 $44,643 $5,000 $6,873 $15,240 $14,304 $11,353 $10,915 $634 $398 $488 $587 $698 $9,102 $8,265 $6,857 $4,263 $6,734 $7,963 $7,351 $6,494 $5,067 $571 $3,257 $0 $0 $0 $0 $924 $1,241 $998 $1,062 $721 Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, Summary Budget Trends 1992-93 1991-92 1990-91 1989-90 1988-89 1987-88 DESCRIPTION Approp. Expend Expend Expend Expend Expend Non -Personnel Operating Costs (continued): Other Supplies (Software) $21,300 $5,419 $5,192 $1,434 $1,934 $1,009 Travel $9,000 $6,368 $4,716 $5,897 $3,549 $2,317 Memberships $3,000 $1,394 $695 $522 $489 $433 Total Non -Personnel $41,923 $31,934 $199,435 $132,526 $7,135 $6,108 Capital Costs: Furniture and Fixtures $850 $2,221 $20,427 $11,534 $12,475 $3,786 Communication Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $2,742 Vehicles & Equip. $0 $0 $8,830 $8,493 $9,001 $0 ADP Equipment $4,500 $6,653 $19,136 $4,226 $2,692 $8,493 Total Capital Costs $5,350 $8,874 $48,393 $24,253 $25,668 $15,021 Total Budget $461,455 $423,992 $611,407 $432,981 $232,007 $202,505 Frederick Co. Department of Planning BRget Trends 70C 600 500 Z 400 m � .y N 0 0O Q 300 200 100 0 1985-86 1987-88 1989-90 1991-92 --_- -_ ❑ Personnel + Operating o Capital © Total