The URL can be used to link to this page

CPPC 12-09-02 Meeting AgendaFile Copy COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director �� RE: REVISED December Meeting and Agenda DATE: December 4, 2002 The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting on Monday, December 9, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room* on the first floor of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will discuss the following agenda items: AGENDA 1) Continuation of review of the proposed 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). 2) Request by property owners in the Stonewall Magisterial District for inclusion in the Urban Development Area (UDA). 3) Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation presentation - Battlefield Clusters. 4) Continuation of discussions regarding the Northeast Land Use Plan review. 5) Other. Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Thank you. *PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT LOCATION FOR THIS MEETING! Access to this building is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter the building through the rear door of the Board Room. I would encourage committee members to park in the county parking lot located behind the new addition (accessible via Cameron Street). U.\C0MMITTEES\CPPS\Agendas\2002 Agendas\December 9, 2002. modified.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 File Copy Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM[ TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Directortl"-- RE: December Meeting and Agenda DATE: December 2, 2002 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting on Monday, December 9, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room* on the first floor of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will discuss the following agenda items: AGENDA 11) Continuation of review of the proposed 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) 2) Request by property owners in the Stonewall Magisterial District for inclusion in the Urban Development Area (UDA). 3) Continuation of discussions regarding the Northeast Land Use Plan review. 4) Other. Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Thank you. *PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT LOCATION FOR THIS MEETING! Access to this building is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter the building through the rear door of the Board Room. I would encourage committee members to park in the county parking lot located behind the new addition (accessible via Cameron Street). U \COMMITTEES\CPPS\Agendas\2002 Agendas\December 9, 2002.wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ITEM #1 CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED 2003-2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CIP •:.�..•.•....•?:..•..:.:,:.:•}.b:.{.:.}::ik:•:v':v:t::;;•�;. :.,:; .r::.:'.ii:•}i:'.iUU}:•.}}}.ti:i}:4:::..::..::..:.••}}ii:4;; ..y}•^}i}}:^:•}i:{/•.:+ The CPPS has been actively engaged in the development of the proposed 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) since its October meeting. To date, the CIP process has involved presentations by representatives of the various departments and agencies regarding their respective project requests as well as discussions amongst CPPS members concerning project prioritization. Moreover, CPPS members have prepared individual ratings of project requests pursuant to set of comprehensive evaluation criteria. Staff has compiled the proposed CIP based on CPPS discussions and the project request evaluations submitted by individual members. Attached with this item is the product derived from the committee's activities, the proposed 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan. It is noted that Page 5 of the plan contains the proposed project prioritization table, which includes expenditure projections as required by the Code of Virginia. It is requested that the CPPS review the proposed CTP and forward a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Commission. (Staff notes that the CPPS has previously stated that their review of the CIP was for project conformance to the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and therefore does not endorse the proposed project expenditures.) SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED 2003-2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ► The proposed CIP consists of thirty (30) capital projects, an increase over the 28 projects included in the previous CIP. ► County contributions toward capital projects (excluding debt service) are estimated to be $56.9 million over the upcoming five-year period, a decrease from the $65.2 million in expenditures projected in the previous CIP. With debt service included, the proposed CIP estimates total County costs for capital projects to be $113.4 million. The proposed CIP includes three (3) new capital projects, which are as follows: land acquisition along Bufflick Road to facilitate the Regional Airport's noise attenuation program; development of a lake, trails and parking with two irrigated multi-purpose fields at Sherando Park; and development of an access road with parking and trails at Sherando Park. ■ All of the capital projects included with the previous CIP will be carried over to the proposed 2003-2004 CIP with the exception of Millbrook High School. Funding for the County's third high school has been completed and construction is well underway, with the opening of the facility scheduled for Fall 2003. ITEM#2 REQUESTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR INCLUSION IN THE UDA Attached with this item are two requests involving multiple property owners in the Stonewall Magisterial District for the expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) to include their properties. The requested expansion has been proposed to occur as a component of the on-going update of the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). The requests involve the parcels comprising the 30 -acre Woods Mill subdivision and a group of 18 parcels totaling approximately 315 acres that are oriented northeast of the intersection of Redbud Road and Milburn Road. All of the parcels included in the requests are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are planned for rural area land use under the existing NELUP. Representatives from the Woods Mill Homeowners Association and the Redbud Road area property owners group will be attending the meeting to formally present their requests. The CPPS is asked to consider these requests and determine whether their incorporation into the NELUP review process is appropriate. ITEC WA iT�3Y 1J1J CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN REVIEW The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) has been reviewing the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) for the past few months, per a directive of the Board of Supervisors. More specifically, the committee was tasked with reviewing the industrial and historic land uses, both existing and as proposed in the Northeast Land Use Plan. To date, seven alternative land use proposals have been submitted for CPPS consideration. Following its November meeting, the committee was asked by staff to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each of the seven alternatives relative to five general categories of plan content. A set of criteria was provided to guide analysis, specifying that an effective comprehensive land use plan achieves the following: 1) a long range vision is articulated, 2) guidance for realizing the vision is provided as general policy, 3) physical development is the focus ofpolicy, and 4) the plan is produced and adopted as a policy instrument, which is inherently advisory in nature. Staffhas received detailed evaluations from several individual committee members and this information has been consolidated into a common outline for subsequent CPPS analysis. Attached with this agenda item is the outline of evaluation comments for each of the seven alternatives. The content of this outline will be the focus of CPPS discussion during the December meeting. U:\C0MMITTEES\CPPS\Agendas\2002 Agendas\December 9, 2002.wpd NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN ALTERNATIVES: OUTLINE OF EVALUATION COMMENTS ALTERNATIVE 1: General Comments ► Strength: maintains Rural Agricultural Character of the District with exception of 1-81/Rt. I I corridor. ► Strength: preserves open space. ► Strength: limits reliance on public water and sewer. ► Weakness: Amount of available water may be limited, therefore increase in SWSA may exceed attainable capacities. ► Weakness: Fails to identify lands for recreational use. Should be at least sixty acres. I Residential Land Uses A. On Public Water and Sewer ► Strength: all of the alternatives show a SWSA that encompasses the existing rural community centers. They also indicate the SWSA extending along the Rt. 11 corridor. ► Weakness: Alternative 1 extends the SWSA to areas that do not need public utilities in the southern portion of the study area. All of the other alternatives show the SWSA as a broad -brush approach to allowing development beyond what would be shown in the Comprehensive Plan. ► Weakness: SWSA extended in to RA designated land in the "lung" area in the Milburn Historic District only. SWSA should either be in no RA areas or all RA areas B. On private health systems ► Strength: all plans allow for private health systems as allowed in the RA zoning district. ► Weakness: the land in the "lung" area in the Milburn Historic District, other than the Historic Preservation area, is undesignated. This should retain its current RA status. ► Weakness: SWSA not extended to areas designated as "in need" due to failing private systems, per Board of Supervisor' desire. II. Industrial Land Uses - ► Weakness: allows for too much industrial development in areas that are visually not acceptable. There should be some compromise between the essentially no industrial development of Alternative 3 and any of the others. The argument that industrial development is encouraged by the presence of rail service is not acceptable given the history of industries that have approached the county looking for sites with rail access. Development should be at the existing I-81 interchanges. Frederick County has a large amount of NELUP Alternatives Page 2 December 2, 2002 undeveloped industrial land available. That land should be developed prior to adding any more industrial land to this portion of the county. Weakness: too much additional industrial designation in light of current EPA concerns, unclear water availability, and % of industrial burden in Stonewall District relative to remainder of the county. Weakness: allows business development too close to the Stonewall Elementary School DSA. This should remain RA. Strength: planned industrial land uses centered around transportation network. III. Agricultural Land Uses Weakness: the RA zoning areas in all of the alternatives should be increased. This portion of the county is rural in nature and should not be converted to industrial or high density residential. Weakness: none of the plans specifically address agricultural usage other than the use of RA designation. IV. Historic Preservation ► Weakness: all alternatives except Alternative 1 appear to adequately preserve our historic sites and land areas. The historical value of the land in this portion of the county is beyond any one person's comprehension. To one person it may be nothing more than a piece of land to be developed and to another it may be the one link to family history and the continued remembrance of our country's heritage. ► Strength: recognition (Historic Preservation) of the core Civil War battlefields as defined by the National Park Service. ► Weakness: No recognition of non -Civil War related historic features in the Milburn Historic District. ► Strength: incorporates ample quantity of preserved land. ► Weakness: some smaller, potentially significant sites are not identified for preservation. V. Transportation Strength/Weakness: All of the plans show limited development outside the existing road systems. There are some plans that will require additional roads be constructed in order to serve the suggested industrial areas and others that might require an additional collector road to handle the added traffic as residential areas are developed. In short, Rt. 11 will have to be improved at some point in the future to accommodate development and some of the side roads and collector roads will have to be improved. Rail access is apparently not as large a deciding factor to industry as some would have us believe. Should an industry or business want to locate in an area that has rail access, there is land currently zoned for that type of development in areas with rail access; let's use it instead of destroying additional land that might be better left to historic preservation or RA residential development. siness Light 111 ' p �B�sin Industria n Busin'ss �ro'Fessina(I District\ I I al Businel? is ss Lig ht Industrial SSA 1 Mi 'i s rr Ind strial `Buffer ` Y `RA •. �h . ou++a,,�� KA a storica A ! c Rwvnfinn Northeast Land Use Plan W Alternative `1 LEGEND Map Features Aaa�m. sw �....,.a.b.= I!'�I: W br feawres H9auc feaivea Proposed Land Use a:a>mbi ;'�fi�snes moors,.,.m gam' mmm.r.bn.e,,. psi Y4lC usni ms�arsi .-.-.—.y sarewa n.aas Rplds Ahhrstate 81 V,"Prirary HgMals /'r' Semrday Fba7s !lR�s RaYoads �y1Y Pmp—d Fb,te 37 Edarsbn Nam Wleaa Fbads 1® lex Sign-¢. DRAFT NELUP Alternatives Page 4 December 2, 2002 ALTERNATIVE 2: General Comments ► Strength: maintains Rural Agricultural Character of the District. ► Strength: preserves open space. ► Weakness: Fails to identify lands for recreational use. Should be at least sixty acres. I Residential Land Use A. On Public Water and Sewer ► Weakness: SWSA extended into RA designated land in the "lung" area in the Milburn Historic District only. SWSA should either be in no RA areas or all RA areas. B. On Private Health Systems ► Weakness: SWSA not extended to areas designated as "in need" due to failing private systems, per Board of Supervisor' desire. II Industrial Land Use ► Weakness: The development of business and industrial sites with conventional septic systems should not be allowed as is currently stated in the comprehensive plan. As the Chairman of the Planning Commission stated "packaged treatment systems are nothing but trouble." ► Weakness: Allows for too much industrial development in areas that are visually not acceptable. There should be some compromise between the essentially no industrial development of Alternative 3 and any of the others. The argument that industrial development is encouraged by the presence of rail service is not acceptable given the history of industries that have approached the county looking for sites with rail access. Development should be at the existing I-81 interchanges. Frederick County has a large amount of undeveloped industrial land available. That land should be developed prior to adding any more industrial land to this portion of the county. ► Weakness: Too much additional industrial designation in light of current EPA concerns, unclear water availability, and % of industrial burden in Stonewall District relative to remainder of the county. ► Weakness: Too much industrial allowed east of Rt.1 l bordering current residential areas. ► Weakness: Allows business development on current RA land in the "lung" area in the Milburn Historic District with a new DHB designation. ► Weakness: Allows business development too close to the Stonewall Elementary School DSA. This should remain RA. ► Strength: provides for strong industrial component to support sustained economic growth. NELUP Alternatives Page 5 December 2, 2002 Strength: planned industrial land use appropriately centered on transportation network. III. Agricultural Land Uses Weakness: The RA zoning areas in the other alternatives should be increased. This portion of the county is rural in nature and should not be converted to industrial or high density residential. Weakness: None of the plans specifically address agricultural usage other than the use of RA designation IV. Historic Preservation ► Strength: all alternatives except Alternative 1 appear to adequately preserve our historic sites and land areas. The historical value of the land in this portion of the county is beyond any one person's comprehension. To one person it may be nothing more than a piece of land to be developed and to another it may be the one link to family history and the continued remembrance of our country's heritage. ► Strength: good recognition of the core Civil War battlefields as defined by the National Park Service. ► Strength: adequately recognizes other historic areas in the Milburn Historic District as DSA. ► Weakness: arguably too detailed in bubble. ► Strength: allows for appropriate development that promotes/supports preservation. VI. Transportation ► Strength/Weakness All of the plans show limited development outside the existing road systems. There are some plans that will require additional roads be constructed in order to serve the suggested industrial areas and others that might require an additional collector road to handle the added traffic as residential areas are developed. In short, Rt. 11 will have to be improved at some point in the future to accommodate development and some of the side roads and collector roads will have to be improved. Rail access is apparently not as large a deciding factor to industry as some would have us believe. Should an industry or business want to locate in an area that has rail access, there is land currently zoned for that type of development in areas with rail access; let's use it instead of destroying additional land that might be better left to historic preservation or RA residential development. ► Weakness: None of the plans address proposed system improvements. ► Weakness: Identification of a potential Rt.37 extension disregarding Board of Supervisors' decision. ► Weakness: Excessive business/industrial build -out along the entire Rt. l l corridor. ► Strength: Planned land use located to maximize transportation system. ► Weakness: not enough information for planning purposes. 0 1 Miles �f hS s .w-rao 'RA r, l 6e RA Northeast Land Use Plan "'+ F Alternative .9 LEGEND AFap Features 9rcr Nee Beunaav '%oaeaetl SW sn ' Wral Lamrwnay Genbre /Wabr Feabrea 7 y,Porannal $roams �Hao.c Faaivea PtQMSed Land use �' H� o. cr9,anees IOHe1 �` H9one Rapaml ul IWP;, wre aalaarea �rre� a.e maaevmemawsons..enrea.;mnr R.Ids N hkrsj"131 I \/ II—,y NstwaS /V semrday Faafs / =-:Ra Yobs Brie 37 6¢alsbn ww C'Iecta roads 0 Nbw Sgrel¢aFm DRAFT NELUP Alternatives Page 6 December 2, 2002 ALTERNATIVE 3: General Comments ► Strength: maintains Rural Agricultural Character of the District with exception of I-81 /Rt. l I corridor. ► Strength: Responsible, Planned Residential Growth within the District. ► Strength: restricts medium density growth to Rural Community Centers. ► Strength: no high density residential growth. ► Strength: no further expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA). ► Strength: maintains large quantity of rural areas land use. ► Strength: preserves open space. ► Weakness: Fails to identify lands for recreational use. Should be at least sixty acres. I Residential Land Use A. On Public Water and Sewer ► Strength: Alternative 3 shows the best layout for the SWSA in conjunction with both existing and future development. ► Strength: Expansion of the SWSA as shown in alternative 3 would allow for the incorporation of existing properties with failing septic systems to be handled by public sewer. ► Strength: This alternative is about the best of all the alternatives presented. It allows incremental expansion of the SWSA to specific areas as they are developed. ► Strength: SWSA is appropriately not present in the "lung" area in the Milburn Historic District. ► Weakness: Appears to be a potentially costly plan for the County. B. On Private Health Svstems ► Strength: All plans allow for private health systems as allowed in the RA Zoning District. ► Strength: SWSA appropriately extended to areas designated as "in need" due to failing private systems, per Board of Supervisor' desire. II Industrial Land Use ► Strength: Alternative 3 is the most acceptable. ► Strength: Provides reasonable amount of designated land for light industry and business development. NELUP Alternatives Page 7 December 2, 2002 III Agricultural Land Use ► Strength: Alternative 3 is the one plan that allows for the continued agricultural land uses without the threat of turning them over to industrial or high density development. ► Weakness: None of the plans specifically address agricultural usage other than the use of RA designation. ► Weakness: questionable whether extensive land planned forrural area land use is responsible; no assurance that agricultural uses will be economically viable. IV. Historic Preservation ► Strength: All alternatives except Alternative 1 appear to adequately preserve our historic sites and land areas. The historical value of the land in this portion of the county is beyond any one person's comprehension. To one person it may be nothing more than a piece of land to be developed and to another it may be the one link to family history and the continued remembrance of our country's heritage. ► Strength: Appropriately designates as DSA the core Civil War battlefields as defined by the National Park Service. ► Weakness: Fails to recognize non -Civil War related historic features in the Milburn Historic District. V. Transportation ► Strength: Once again, Alternative 3 best utilizes our existing transportation system and allows for its improvement and expansion. Weakness: None of the plans adequately address proposed system improvements. ► Weakness: Identifies apotential Rt.37 extension, disregarding Board of Supervisors' decision. ► Strength: Business and light industrial development is concentrated around existing I-81/Rt.I l interchanges. Weakness: not enough information for planning purposes. 0 1 Miles sin► �.. RA lktl fi t♦ Northeast Land Use Plan WE Alternative 3 LEGEND Map F mimes !St —a. P SW SAaay q�/'Nabr feaures 3r Pormnel 9reama A( MSoncFpa— Prnp]SBd Land Use —.—I B� Fe�aneasl . Ce—p...... Sen»we Arxaa 0.SAr Roads N py�rary I -ays /�d S—naaryFbads tl'^O- Ralmads lJP p edFbuxe37 Eacnwn N Nan Cdledv Fbads 31 NenSgrelmdi- DRAFT NELUP Alternatives Page 8 December 2, 2002 ALTERNATIVE 4 General Comments ► Strength: Maintains Rural Agricultural Character of the District with exception of 1-81/Rt. l l corridor. ► Strength: Preserves open space. ► Weakness: Fails to identify lands for recreational use. Should be at least 60 acres. I Residential Land Use A. On Public Water and Sewer ► Weakness: SWSA not extended in to RA designated land in the "lung" area in the Milburn Historic District only. SWSA should either be in no RA areas or all RA areas. B. On Private Health Systems ► Weakness: SWSA not extended to areas designated as "in need" due to failing private systems, disregarding Board of Supervisor' desire. II Industrial Land Uses ► Weakness: Allows for too much industrial development in areas that are visually not acceptable. There should be some compromise between the essentially no industrial development of Alternative 3 and any of the others. The argument that industrial development is encouraged by the presence of rail service is not acceptable given the history of industries that have approached the county looking for sites with rail access. Development should be at the existing I-81 interchanges. Frederick county has a large amount of undeveloped industrial land available. That land should be developed prior to adding any more industrial land to this portion of the county. ® Weakness: Provides for too much additional industrial designation in light of current EPA concerns, unclear water availability, and % of industrial burden in Stonewall District relative to remainder of the county. ► Weakness: Provides for too much industrial allowed east of Rt. II bordering current residential areas. ► Weakness: Allows business development too close to the Stonewall Elementary School DSA. This should remain RA. ► Strength: Planned industrial land use appropriately organize on transportation network (rail and roads). ► Strength: Proposed SWSA will accommodate positive industrial development, promoting strong economic base. NELUP Alternatives Page 9 December 2, 2002 III. Agricultural Land Uses Weakness: The RA zoning areas in the other alteratives should be increased. This portion of the county is rural in nature and should not be converted to industrial or high density residential. Weakness: None of the plans specifically address agricultural usage other than the use of RA designation IV. Historic Preservation ► Strength: All alternatives exce t Alternative 1 appear to adequately preserve our historic sites and land areas. The historical value of the land in this portion of the county is beyond any one person's comprehension. To one person it may be nothing more than a piece of land to be developed and to another it may be the one link to family history and the continued remembrance of our country's heritage. ► Strength: Appropriate recognition ofDSA as the core Civil War battlefields as defined by the National Park Service. ► Weakness: Fails to recognize non -Civil War related historic features in the Milburn Historic District. V. Transportation ► Strength/Weakness All of the plans show limited development outside the existing road systems. There are some plans that will require additional roads be constructed in order to serve the suggested industrial areas and others that might require an additional collector road to handle the added traffic as residential areas are developed. In short, Rt. 11 will have to be improved at some point in the future to accommodate development and some of the side roads and collector roads will have to be improved. Rail access is apparently not as large a deciding factor to industry as some would have us believe. Should an industry or business want to locate in an area that has rail access, there is land currently zoned for that type of development in areas with rail access. Let's use it instead of destroying additional land that might be better left to historic preservation or RA residential development. ► Weakness: None of the plans address proposed system improvements. ► Weakness: Identification of a potential Rt, 37 extension, disregarding Board of Supervisors' decision. ► Weakness: Excessive business/industrial build -out along the entire Rt. 11 corridor. ► Weakness: not enough information for planning purposes. 0 1 Miles �I Indu dUS$ Northeast Land Use Plan Alternative 4 LEGEND Nap F®tyres W SUd/ Ama Bardary PRpaed SWS4 Rr2 Camuri y Ce-ters 1, Wala Feat— lvp—mA St.— ,4. Kst)w Featu FYepGsed �aad Use R.�Jartal ' Blsir)aa hdusYa . �� i Fara i4ea jCewdop-ertaiySemlf fleas Reads hBlstaeel fiery Hqhv� S®rday Fbads Ralnans Pocked FbLte 37 Eaelsioe I� Ph. Crl lack Roads N-. Sigrj�lw Z ng B2 (Busr+ess, Gmery Cehdl ^- Eu ;Evo-ul•e � ecy Mt 1'nu al, rgM1leGureU9 _ M21: noelnal. Gane� Dalcll MN1 (Mobde Nome Comnun Ayl RA IRV•AIA•eal !8'Reaitlen5el Pedornance Oe Yet) DRAFT NELUP Alternatives Page 10 December 2, 2002 ALTERNATIVE 5 General Comments ► Strength: Maintains Rural Agricultural Character of the District with exception of I-81 /Rt. l l corridor. ► Strength: Preserves open space. ► Weakness: Fails to identify lands for recreational use. Should be at least sixty acres. I Residential Land Use A. On Public Water and Sewer ► Weakness: SWSA inappropriately extended into RA designated land in the "lung" area in the Milburn Historic District only. SWSA should either be in no RA areas or all RA areas. ► Strength: SWSA is appropriately not present in the "lung" area of the Milburn Historic District. B. On Private Health Systems ► Weakness: SWSA not extended to areas designated as "in need" due to failing private systems, disregarding Board of Supervisor' desire. II Industrial Land Use ► Weakness: Allows for too much industrial development in areas that are visually not acceptable. There should be some compromise between the essentially no industrial development of alternative 3 and any of the others. The argument that industrial development is encouraged by the presence of rail service is not acceptable given the history of industries that have approached the county looking for sites with rail access. Development should be at the existing I-81 interchanges. Frederick county has a large amount of undeveloped industrial land available. That land should be developed prior to adding any more industrial land to this portion of the county. ► Weakness: Provides for too much additional industrial designation in light of current EPA concerns, unclear water availability, and % of industrial burden in Stonewall District relative to remainder of the county. ► Weakness: Provides for too much industrial allowed east of Rt.l l bordering current residential areas. ► Weakness: Allows business development too close to the Stonewall Elementary School DSA. This should remain RA. NELUP Alternatives Page 11 December 2, 2002 I1I. Agricultural Land Uses Weakness: The RA zoning areas in the other alternatives should be increased. This portion of the county is rural in nature and should not be converted to industrial or high density residential. Weakness: None of the plans specifically address agricultural usage other than the use of RA designation IV. Historic Preservation ► Strength: All alternatives except Alternative 1 appear to adequately preserve our historic sites and land areas. The historical value of the land in this portion of the county is beyond any one person's comprehension. To one person it may be nothing more than a piece of land to be developed and to another it may be the one link to family history and the continued remembrance of our country's heritage. ► Strength: Recognition of DSA as the core Civil War battlefields as defined by the National Park Service. ► Weakness: Fails to recognize non -Civil War related historic features in the Milburn Historic District. ► Weakness: Quantity ofresources identified for preservation may not be justifiable, especially when compared to the recommendations of other alternatives. ► Weakness: Some smaller sites appear to have been overlooked. VI. Transportation ► Strength/Weakness All of the plans show limited development outside the existing road systems. There are some plans that will require additional roads be constructed in order to serve the suggested industrial areas and others that might require an additional collector road to handle the added traffic as residential areas are developed. In short, Rt. 11 will have to be improved at some point in the future to accommodate development and some of the side roads and collector roads will have to be improved. Rail access is apparently not as large a deciding factor to industry as some would have us believe. Should an industry or business want to locate in an area that has rail access, there is land currently zoned for that type of development in areas with rail access. Let's use it instead of destroying additional land that might be better left to historic preservation or RA residential development. ► Weakness: None of the plans address proposed system improvements. ► Weakness: Identifies potential Rt.37 extension disregarding Board of Supervisors' decision. ► Weakness: Excessive business/industrial build -out along the entire Rt.I l corridor. ► Weakness: System (existing and proposed) cuts through historically sensitive areas. ► Weakness: not enough information for planning purposes. \—II lnd,ust-rffl--,' s W �/s es a. A Busine dus'Wal DSA DSA ralt 0 1 Miles I ��Mlw x 11" rk RA RA U-101 Northeast Land Use Plan Alternative 5 LEGEND Nbp F.t.— C.,." P.m..d Land Use Roads %11—mf -ys SowridayFbads Mw CJ 6eclu Fbads DRAFT NELUP Alternatives Page 12 December 2, 2002 ALTERNATIVE 6: General Comments ► Strength: Preserves large tract RA quality of Stonewall District in some areas. ► Strength: Preserves open space. ► Weakness: Inappropriately allows high-density residential growth in the "lung" area of the Milburn Historic District. ► Weakness: Fails to identify lands for recreational use. Should be at least sixty acres. I Residential Land Use A. On Public Water and Sewer ► Weakness: Fails to address SWSA. B. On Private Health Systems ► Weakness: SWSA not extended to areas designated as "in need" due to failing private systems, disregarding Board of Supervisor' desire. II Industrial Land Use ► Weakness: Allows for too much industrial development in areas that are visually not acceptable. There should be some compromise between the essentially no industrial development of alternative 3 and any of the others. The argument that industrial development is encouraged by the presence of rail service is not acceptable given the history of industries that have approached the county looking for sites with rail access. Development should be at the existing I-81 interchanges. Frederick county has a large amount of undeveloped industrial land available. That land should be developed prior to adding any more industrial land to this portion of the county. ► Weakness: Provides for too much additional industrial designation in light of current EPA concerns, unclear water availability, and % of industrial burden in Stonewall District relative to remainder of the county. ► Strength: Provides for reasonable amount of designated land for clustered business development. III. Agricultural Land Uses ► Weakness: The RA zoning areas in the other alternatives should be increased. This portion of the county is rural in nature and should not be converted to industrial or high density residential. ► Weakness: None of the plans specifically address agricultural usage other than the use of RA NELUP Alternatives Page 13 December 2, 2002 designation IV. Historic Preservation ► Strength: All alternatives except Alternative 1 appear to adequately preserve our historic sites and land areas. The historical value of the land in this portion of the county is beyond any one person's comprehension. To one person it may be nothing more than a piece of land to be developed and to another it may be the one link to family history and the continued remembrance of our country's heritage. ► Strength: Recognition of DSA as the core Civil War battlefields as defined by the National Park Service. ► Weakness: Fails to recognize non -Civil War related historic features in the Milburn Historic District. ► Weakness: Arguably too detailed in bubble. V. Transportation Strength/Weakness All of the plans show limited development outside the existing road systems. There are some plans that will require additional roads be constructed in order to serve the suggested industrial areas and others that might require an additional collector road to handle the added traffic as residential areas are developed. In short, Rt. 11 will have to be improved at some point in the future to accommodate development and some of the side roads and collector roads will have to be improved. Rail access is apparently not as large a deciding factor to industry as some would have us believe. Should an industry or business want to locate in an area that has rail access, there is land currently zoned for that type of development in areas with rail access. Let's use it instead of destroying additional land that might be better left to historic preservation or RA residential development. Weakness: None of the plans address proposed system improvements. Strength: Appropriately does not identify a potential Rt.37 extension in keeping with recent Board of Supervisors' decision. Weakness: not enough information for planning purposes. ,*Jme lank, "M 912-710-- �V�j igo Am a., 0 2xi,Ac MOIL-, 4:7 0 2xi,Ac MOIL-, NELUP Alternatives Page 14 December L, 2002 ALTERNATIVE 7: General Comments ► Weakness: Fails to identify lands for recreational use. Should be at least 60 acres. I Residential Land Use A. On Public Water and Sewer No specific comments. B. On Private Health Systems No specific comments. II Industrial Land Use ► Weakness: Allows for too much industrial development in areas that are visually not acceptable. There should be some compromise between the essentially no industrial development of Alternative 3 and any of the others. The argument that industrial development is encouraged by the presence of rail service is not acceptable given the history of industries that have approached the county looking for sites with rail access. Development should be at the existing I-81 interchanges. Frederick County has a large amount of undeveloped industrial land available. That land should be developed prior to adding any more industrial land to this portion of the county. III. Agricultural Land Uses ► Weakness: The RA zoning areas in the other alternatives should be increased. This portion of the county is rural in nature and should not be converted to industrial or high density residential. ► Weakness: None of the plans specifically address agricultural usage other than the use of RA designation IV. Historic Preservation ► Strength: All alternatives except Alternative 1 appear to adequately preserve our historic sites and land areas. The historical value of the land in this portion of the county is beyond any one person's comprehension. To one person it may be nothing more than a piece of land to be developed and to another it may be the one link to family history and the continued remembrance of our country's heritage. NELUP Alternatives Page 15 December 2, 2002 V. Transportation Strength/Weakness: All of the plans show limited development outside the existing road systems. There are some plans that will require additional roads be constructed in order to serve the suggested industrial areas and others that might require an additional collector road to handle the added traffic as residential areas are developed. In short, Rt. 11 will have to be improved at some point in the future to accommodate development and some of the side roads and collector roads will have to be improved. Rail access is apparently not as large a deciding factor to industry as some would have us believe. Should an industry or business want to locate in an area that has rail access, there is land currently zoned for that type of development in areas with rail access. Let's use it instead of destroying additional land that might be better left to historic preservation or RA residential development. Weakness: not enough information for planning purposes. GENERAL COMMENTS - APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANS All of the above comments make no difference if the Sanitation Authority does not have the capacity in the existing sewage treatment plants to treat the sewage of any alternative at build -out. The Sanitation Authority should also have a plan for additional treatment capacity once the existing facilities are filled to capacity. This plan should be in place prior to any development north of the maximum build -out capacity limit set by the existing treatment plant. Total industrial land use should be limited to approximately 600 acres of the study area. After reviewing the six proposals for the NELUP, which all focus more on turning a large tract of land in the Stephenson area into some type of huge historic park, it is arguably impossible to consider this type of planning as fiscally responsible. Given the geographic location of the Stephenson tract and the available infrastructure coupled with the current fiscal climate in the County, it is difficult to give any of these six alternatives a supportive comment. The County has limited ideal locations remaining in the county to plan properly for future economic growth. We must have a good mix of uses that will generate income for the county, and none of these alternatives take that into consideration. U.\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Agendas\2002 Agendas\December 9, 2002.wpd FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Capital Improvements Flan 2003-2004 Fiscal Year -------------DRAFT-------------- Adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors February XX, 2003 Recommended by the Frederick County Planning Commission February XX, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................... ,....................................... 1 PROJECT °" OMMENDATIONS............................................... 2 SchoofBoard........................................ ...,,,.,,.......... 2 Parks and Recreation..................................................... 2 County Administration ...................................... , .... , .. _ .... 3 Handley Regional Library ................................................. 4 Airport Authority ........................................................ 4 2003-2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .................................... 5 CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS.................................................. 6 PROJECTFUNDING..........................................................7 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS..................................................... 8 Frederick County Public Schools ............................... , , . ........ 8 James Wood Middle School Renovation ................................ 8 #4 Middle School Construction ...................... • • • . . . .. , .. . . .... 8 Transportation Facility ..................... • ....... • • • • • .. • • • • • .. • • 9 #11 Elementary School Construction .......................... . ....... 9 Administration Building Renovations .................................. 9 New Gainesboro Elementary School .................................. 10 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................ 10 Field House/Indoor Pool Complex ................................... 10 Parkland in Eastern Frederick County ................................. 11 Parkland in Western Frederick County ................................ I 1 Softball Complex-Sherando Park .................................... 12 Baseball Complex Renovation-Sherando Park .......................... 12 Soccer Complex-Sherando Park ........................ • • • • • • • • • • ... 13 Open Play Areas - Clearbrook Park ................................... 13 Skateboard Park-Sherando Park ......... ............... • ..... ... .. 13 Tennis/Basketball Complex -Clearbrook Park ........................... 14 Tennis/Picnic Area - Sherando Park .................................. 14 Shelter/Stage Seating - Clearbrook Park ............................... 14 Maintenance Compound and Office - Sherando Park ..................... 15 Lake, Trail, and Parking with Irrigated Multi -Purpose Fields - Sherando Park . 15 Access Road with Parking and Trails - Sherando Park ................... 15 County Administration ............................... . ....... • ......... 16 Public Safety Center .............................................. 16 New Frederick County Animal Shelter .................... , . _ .. 16 Annex Facilities..................................................17 Relocation of Round Hill Fire/Rescue Station ........................... 18 Winchester Regional Airport .............................................. 18 Airport Road (Route 645) Relocation - Construction Phase ................ 18 Airfield Lighting Upgrade .......................................... 18 Airfield Maintenance Building ...................................... 19 Land Acquisition - Bufflick Road .................................... 19 Handley Regional Library ................................................ 20 Bowman Library Improvements ............................... 20 Northern Frederick County Library Branch - Land Acquisition ............. 20 DEPARTMENTAL SHARE OF EXPENDITURES ................................. 21 2003-2004 PROJECT EVALUATION FORM ................... . .................. 22 Description of Evaluation Criteria .......................................... 23 CAP ICTAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAIT FREDERICK COUNTY 2003-2004 INTRODUCTION Section 15.2-2239 of the Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation of plans for capital outlays to the local Planning Commissions. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for major capital expenditures for the county for the ensuing five years. The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plan as they are completed or as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in preparation of the county budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital expenditures, the county must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public. The annual review process begins with the submission of capital improvement requests from county departments and relevant agencies in the fall of the year. These requests are evaluated by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission, using a list of seven evaluation criteria. Each criterion is assigned a weight which reflects the relative importance when compared to the other criterion. The CPPS then meets with representatives of departments making expenditure requests and determines a recommended priority for the various requests. This recommendation is forwarded to the Planning Commission which in turn makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. School Board. 2. Parks and Recreation Page 2 In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the growing student population, the construction of a new middle school and two new elementary schools are recommended. Renovations to James Wood Middle School are underway and additional funding is requested to continue improvements to the 1,000 student facility. These renovations are intended to expand the life of the 50 -year-old facility. Funding is also being requested for the construction of a new central transportation maintenance facility which will house all of the school system's buses and provide service to county vehicles from other departments. The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county's two regional parks. Eight projects are planned for Sherando Park: a softball complex, a soccer complex, tennis courts and picnic areas, renovations to the existing baseball fields, a skate/in-line hockey park, maintenance compound, lake with associated trails and parking, and two irrigated multi-purpose fields with associated trails and parking. Three projects are planned for Clearbrook Park including a new open play area, a tennis and basketball complex, and a new shelter and stage. Also planned is an indoor pool/field house complex. The scope and location of this project have not been determined. Various options for the development of this project are being explored, including a public-private partnership. The Parks and Recreation Department has proposed to acquire land in both the eastern and western portions of the county for the development of future regional park systems. This proposal calls for the acquisition of 150-200 acres of land for each regional park system to accommodate the recreational needs of the growing population. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 3 3. County Administration ` In an effort to improve service to the citizens throughout the county and meet current and future space needs, the Frederick County Sheriff's Office is exploring the feasibility of acquiring land in a strategic location for the development of a new Public [)RAFT Safety Center. The development of an 8,500 -square -foot animal shelter is proposed to replace the existing Esther Boyd Animal Shelter. The existing shelter is expected to be displaced in approximately 3 years due to continued development of the Municipal Solid Waste landfill. The animal shelter would serve Frederick County and accommodate growth of the animal population. This shelter could be located on the same site as the Public Safety Center, as space allows. Long-range service enhancements are recommended to provide annex satellite facilities in strategic locations throughout the county that will house representatives of the Frederick County Sheriff's Office, the Frederick County Treasurer's Office, and the Commissioner of Revenue's Office. The Department of Fire & Rescue has recommended a new fire/rescue station along Fairfax Pike (Route 277) that would potentially house such satellite offices. The fire/rescue facility would serve areas in southeast Frederick County between Route 522 and Route 277. Relocation of the existing Round Hill Fire Station is also requested. This would involve the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot facility for fire and rescue activities along with the building of a 10,000 square foot community center for fund- raising and other activities. 5. Handley The Handley Regional Library has recommended two projects. Regional Library The library proposes to acquire 3 to 4 acres of land in the Gainesboro Magisterial District for a future branch library. A project request for improvements at the existing Bowman Library is also proposed. More parking at the Bowman Library is needed to accommodate the growing number of users of the library. A sidewalk extension is needed for safer access from adjoining neighborhoods to the library. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 4 4. Airport Authority An updated master plan for the Winchester Regional Airport was adopted in December 1993. This plan contains recommendations regarding capital improvements at the airport that are designed to meet federal guidelines and provide better service to airport users. The Airport Authority has included a project request to construct and relocate a segment of Airport Road (Route 645) to meet Runway Protection Zone requirements mandated by the FAA; a request to upgrade the airfield lighting system to enhance safety for aircraft use of the facility; a request to construct a new airfield maintenance building; and a request for land acquisition along Bufflick road for noise abatement within the airport's DNL 65 noise contour. Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the Federal and State Governments contribute a majority of the funding, with Frederick County and the City of Winchester providing the remaining funding. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan DRAFT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2003-2004 County Department COUNTY CONTRIBUTION PER FISCAL YEAR County Interest From Any TOTAL COUNTY Total Project Priority; Priority Projects 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Contri-butiOttS Notes Debt Service COSTS Costs I I (PS) ,lames Wood Middle School Renovation 1 1,820,000 1.40,000 E 6,580,000 18,330;000 $18,330,000 2 1 (AP) Airport Road Relocation (Construction) 420,000 f 420,000 ! A 0 420;000 , $2,100,000 3 1 CA) Public Safety Center N/A * 0 V C N/A ** 0 $0 4 2 (AP) Airfield Lighting Upgrade 15,0001 15,000 A 0 15;000 $75,000 't 5 I (HL) Bowman Parking Lot/Sidewalk Extension 228,468 e1� 228,46$ 0 228,468 p . $228,468 �:. _ 6 2 (CA) New Animal Shelter 129,0001,125,000 I 1,254,000 i 0 1,25#;000 $1,254;000 7 2 (PS) #4 Middle School Construction 13,435,000 1.j t 13,435,000 E 12,962,081 36,262;081 $36,262;081 . 8 2 (PR) :Park Land East 2,196,063 ' 2,19063 11 0 2,196,063 $2,196,063 9 6 (PS) .New Gainesboro Elementary School 3,280,000 6,720,000 10,000,000 5,563,125 15,563,125 $15 563,125 ] I 4 PS #I I Elementary School Construction E *** 3,280,000 6,72Q000� 0 C N/A ** 0 $0 10 1 (PR) !Field House/Indoor Pool _ N/A ( ) ry.� 10,000,000 TE 6,008,175 16,808,175 Y -$16808,175. 12 6 (PR) Soccer Complex - SP j 1,146,199 1,14ti,1'99 0 1,146,199 5 $1,141 149 13 4 (AP) Land Acquisition - Bufflick Road 4,275 140,000 144,275 A 1 0 144;275 i' $$23;750 14 3 (PR) Park Land West 1,344,252 1,344,252 0 1,344;252 $1444,252 15 3 (AP) 'Airfield Maintenance Building 1 210,000 I 210,000 A 0 210;000 $300;000 16 2 (HL) New Library - Land Acquisition j ; - 48,000 48,000 ,±r D 0 48;000 $48,000 3 17 3 (PS) ;Transportation Facility F 2,195,000 4,505,000 j 6,740,900 J 3,727,294 10,427,294 $10,427,294 IS 3 (CA) Annex Facilities 215,000 ! 250,000 ' 465,090 f B , C N/A ** 465,000 $4651000' 1 (PR) 19 4 ( Softball Complex - SP - 491,619 - - t 4911,619 0 49i:b19 $441:619 20 2 (PR) Maintenance Compound 196,195 q 196,195 0 196,195 $196,195; 21 7 (PR) Open Play Areas -CB i 368,699 368,699 w 0 ._. 368,699 .- $3613,699 22 5 (PR) Baseball Complex Renovation - SP 1,007,788 1,007;788 0 1,007;788 ! $1,007,788 23 10 (PR) .Tennis[Picnic Areas - SP619,390 6190390 0 6,M390 $619,390 24 9 (PR) Tennis/Basketball Complex g 384,876 3841876 0 384,876 $384;876 25 11 (PR) Shelter/Stage - CB ! �' 380,245 380,245 0 380,245 $38;1.245 26 13 (PR) : Lake/Trails/Parking/MP Fields - SP E 793,000 7931000 0 793,000 $793,060 27 5 (PS) 'Administration Building Renovations a 1 2,000,000 J' 2,000,000 1,112,625 3,112,625 $3,112,625' 28 14 (PR) Access Road with Parking & Trails 797,000 797,000 , 0 797;000 " $797,000 29 8 (PR) Skateboard Park/In-Line Hockey 468,017 4681017 i 0 469,017 $46$;017 30 4 (CA) Relocation of Roundhill Fire/Rescue N/A* 0 C _N/A ** _ 01 $0 TOTALS $18,452,468 $12,669,590 $11,755,606 s $4,501,592 $9,553,830 E $56;933,086 „$35,953,300 *~ $113,48 A= A = Partial funding from Federal Airport Improvement Program (FAIP) and State Commonwealth Airport Fund (SCAF) grants B =Project includes County Administration annex offices for the Commissioner of the Revenue, C = Project costs not identified at time of printing the Treasurer, the Sheriff, and the proposed Fairfax Pike Fire Station. E= Portion of project was funded in previous year D= Partial funding from private donations. N/A* - Project Scope Not Determined At Time Of Printing Department Priority Abbreviations: AP - Winchester Regional Airport N/A** - Funding Source Not Determined; Therefore, Debt Service Uncertain At. Time Of Printing CA -Count), Administration N/A"* - Feasibility Study To Be Completed Prior To Project Scope Determination HL - Handley Library N/A**** - Project To Be. Complete Beyond FY 2007-2008, Therefore No Cost Intimate Projected DRAFT PR - Parks and Recreation PS - Public Schools 11/22/02 Page 6 THE CIP TABLE: IIThe Capital Improvements Plan table, on the previous page, CONTENT contains a ltst of the capital Improvement projects proposed I DESCRIPTIONS the ensuing five years. A description of the information in this table Is explained below. -., County Priority - The priority rating of all projects included in F the CIP. County priority ratings are the result of the criterion and weight evaluation process as illustrated on the Evaluation Form. The Evaluation Form is located on page 22 of this booklet. Department Priority - The priority rating assigned by each department for their requested projects. Project Description - The name of the capital improvement proj ects. County Contribution - The estimated dollar value that will be contributed for each project. This value is listed by individual fiscal years and by total contributions over the five-year period. The total contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year columns, does not include debt service projections. Notes - Indicates the footnotes that apply to additional funding sources for particular projects. Interest From Any Debt Service - The projected interest that will be incurred for a particular project. Debt service projections are provided by individual departments and are based on the most accurate interest rate information available at the time the CIP is assembled. Total County Costs - The total estimated expenditures that the county will incur for a particular project. This column includes both fiscal year allocations and debt service expenses associated with each project. Essentially, this column represents the total county contributions for each particular project. Total Project Costs - The cost for each project, including county allocations and other funding sources. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 7 PROJECT FUNDING ► The projects included in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project cost of $115,990,861. If all projects are undertaken, the county will contribute $56,933,086 over the ensuing five years, excluding the interest from any debt service. By adding the projected debt service of $35,953,300, the total county contribution of the approved projects comes to $113,481,386. Costs associated with the Public Safety Center, the Field House Complex, the new County Administration Annex facilities (Treasurer, Commission of Revenue, Sheriff, and the Fairfax Pike Fire Station), and the relocation of the Round Hill Fire Station are not included in these figures. School projects are funded through a combination of loans from the Virginia Public School Authority and the Virginia Literary Fund. Funding for Parks and Recreation Department projects will come from the unreserved fund balance of the county. The Parks and Recreation Commission will actively seek grants and private sources of funding for projects not funded by the county. Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the Federal, State, and Local Governments. The local portion may include contributions from Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of Winchester. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Frederick County , Public Schools Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 James Wood Middle School Renovations Description: This project involves renovations to the HVAC system, electrical and lighting upgrades, removal of asbestos floor tiles, window repair and replacement, and painting. Capital Cost*: $1,820,000 Debt Service: $6,580,000 Justification: The renovations are necessary to extend the life of the 50 -year-old structure which serves 1,000 students in grades 6, 7, and 8, as well as a variety of community and civic organizations. Construction Schedule: Multi-year project that began in FY 01-02 and will be completed in FY 03-04. *$9, 930, 000 borrowed prior to 6/30/03, resulting in total capital cost of $11, 750, 000 (not including debt service). PRIORITY 2 # 4 Middle School Construction Description: This project involves the construction of an 800 - member middle school in eastern Frederick County on 30-35 acres. Capital Cost*: $13,435,000 Debt Service: $ 12,962,081 Justification: The construction of a fourth middle school is necessary to provide space for the increase in middle school age population. Construction of the new school will decrease the over crowding at James Wood Middle School and accommodate future growth within the student population . Construction Schedule: Open in Fall 2004. *$9,865, 000 borrowed prior to 6/30/03, resulting in total capital cost of $23,300,000 (not including debt service). Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan PRIORITY -3 PRIORITY 4 PRIORITY 5 Page 9 Transportation Facility Description: This project involves the site acquisition and development of a new transportation facility for the public school system. The facility would also provide support services to other county agencies such as Sheriff's Department, and Parks and Recreation. Capital Cost: $6,850,000 Debt Service: $3,836,000 Justification: The facility will be utilized. for the repair, inspection, and service of approximately 155 schools buses, and 90 cars and trucks within the 10,706 student public school system. Construction Schedule: FY 04-05. Elementary School # 11 Description: This project involves the construction of a new elementary school to accommodate a practical capacity of 550 students. Capital Cost*: $10,000,000 Debt Service: $ 6,008,175 Justification: This project is needed to accommodate growth patterns in the County's Urban Development Area. Construction Schedule: Open in Fall 2006. *$800,000 borrowed prior to 6/30103, resulting in total capital cost of $10,800, 000 (not including debt service). Administration Building Renovations Description: This project involves remodeling the existing administration building to address energy conservation; to provide adequate restroom and storage facilities; and to upgrade the fire protection, electrical, and security systems. The project would also include additional space for information technology needs and the space needs of other departments. Capital Cost: $2,000,000 Frederick County 2003-2UU4 Capital improvements pian Page 10 Debt Service: $1,112,625 Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Justification: The carrying capacity of the building for staff office space and records space has been exceeded. The building also lacks adequate facilities to meet the needs of the school division. Construction Schedule: The project is estimated to take one year to complete and is proposed for FY 05-06. PRIORITY 6 New Gainesboro Elementary School Description: This project involves the construction of an elementary school (grades K-5) of approximately 65,000 square feet to serve 550 students. The school is located on a 20 -acre site. Capital Cost: $10,000,000. Debt Service: $ 5,563,125 Justification: This project will serve approximately 550 students in grades K-5. The Frederick County School Board purchased 20 acres of land in the Gainesboro District in 1990 in anticipation of the future need to provide space for increased student enrollment. Construction Schedule: FY06-07 through FY07-08.. Frederick County Parks and Recreation Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Field HouselIndoor Pool Complex Description: The scope of this project has not been determined. The Parks and Recreation Department is exploring various options for the development of the field house complex, including a public/private partnership. The Field House and Indoor Pool Complex would be approximately 118,000 square feet and include a 25 -yard x 50 -meter indoor swimming pool, a 200- meter indoor track, a fitness center, multipurpose rooms, locker rooms, offices, and four basketball courts that would be designed with in -floor sleeves and partitions to allow the courts to be utilized for indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis, badminton, and special events such as dances, music festivals, and garden, home, or craft shows. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 11 Capital Cost: To be determined. Justification: Since the inception of the Parks and Recreation Department, the department has relied solely on the use of the county public schools to house programs. This arrangement was adequate when the department first started out; however, now that the department offers more than 750 programs annually, space within the schools is more difficult to secure and scheduling is more difficult. This has created a situation where the department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the county residents. Additionally, there are no indoor pools in Frederick County; therefore, the provision of this facility within the Field House Complex would enable the department to meet citizen programming and instructional demands and would provide the area with a facility that would attract new business to the community. This facility would be available to all area residents. Construction Schedule: The Parks and Recreation department requests that the project be funded and completed in FY 2003- 04. PRIORITY 2 Parkland in Eastern Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county. Capital Cost: $2,196,063 Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be located within the Urban Development Area to provide recreational opportunities to this most actively growing part of the county. Acquisition of additional parkland would assist in meeting the minimum facility needs of future county residents as recommended by the 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan. The location of a regional park in this portion of the county would also reduce traffic burdens in other areas by providing recreational facilities and services in closer proximity to the residents within this area. Construction Schedule: Acquisition in FY 04-05. PRIORITY 3 Parkland in Western Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 12 county. Capital Cost: $1,344,252 Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county population. Acquisition of _. additional parkland would assist in meeting the minimum - _ facility needs of county residents as recommended by the 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan. Currently, this facility need is 558 acres based on 1998 population projections for Frederick County. The county owns 404 acres of parkland at this time. Construction Schedule: Acquisition in FY 04-05. PRIORITY 4 Softball Complex - Sherando Park Description: This project includes two softball fields; an access road; parking spaces; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $491,619 Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the entire county population, as well as the Frederick County School System. Presently, there are ten softball and baseball fields within the county's regional park system. Eight of the existing fields must serve a dual purpose of facilitating youth baseball, as well as adult softball programs. With the increased usage of these fields, it has become increasingly difficult to facilitate these programs. This project is needed in order for the Parks and Recreation Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth baseball and adult softball programs. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 05-06 PRIORITY 5 Baseball Complex Renovations - Sherando Park Description: This project includes an upgrade to the lighting system; the renovation of four existing ball fields; and renovations of existing restrooms, access roads, and walkways. Capital Cost: $1,007,788 Justification: This facility, presently serving as both youth baseball and adult softball fields, would be used by the Little League Programs within the Sherando Park service area. In addition to its use as a recreational facility, the athletic complex will also be used by the Frederick County School System. This Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan PRIORITY 6 PRIORITY 7 PRIORITY 8 Page 13 project cannot be completed until the Sherando Softball Complex is completed. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 05-06. Soccer Complex - Sherando Park Description: This project includes the development of two soccer fields; one picnic shelter; access paths; restrooms; concessions; landscaping; and lighting. Capital Cost: $1,146,199 Justification: This facility will serve the entire county population and will be utilized by the Frederick County School System. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 05-06. Open Play Areas - Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of a picnic shelter; six horseshoe pits; a volleyball court; croquet turf, shuffleboard; parking; refurbishing the existing concession stand; and renovations to existing shelters, access paths, and parking areas on the south side of the lake. Capital Cost: $368,699 Justification: These facilities will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook Park Service Area which will lessen the disparity between the number of passive recreational areas needed to meet the minimum standards for this service area. Clearbrook Park offers the best location for this development. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 06-07, Skateboard/In-Line Hockey Park Description: This project recommends the development of a skateboard bowl; a half pipe; an open skate area; two in-line hockey rinks; vehicle parking; an access road; fencing; and landscaping. Sherando park is the proposed location of this facility. . Capital Cost: $468,017 Justification: This facility will enable the county to provide a Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Flan Page 14 recreational facility that has been requested for the community's youth. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 06-07. PRIORITY 9"' Tennis/Basketball Complex - Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of four tennis courts; two basketball courts; a shelter; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $384,876 Justification: These facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park Service Area. Clearbrook Park is utilized by over 150,000 visitors annually; therefore, these facilities are needed. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 06-07. PRIORITY 10 Tennis/Picnic Area - Sherando Park Description: This project includes the development of three tennis courts; a playground area; four picnic shelters; restrooms; a concession area; access road; access paths; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $619,390 Justification: These facilities would be used by the residents of southern Frederick County. Although tennis courts have been included at Sherando High School, the department feels that it is important to include three tennis courts on park property for general use while the school courts are being used for school activities. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 11 Shelter/Stage Seating - Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of a shelter with a performance stage; refurbishing existing restrooms and access paths; and renovations to the lake. Capital Cost: $380,245 Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 15 �Ipopulat.on. Presently, there are ro fariljtiac t� ar.rnmmnd�te cultural programs within the county's park system. This project is needed to provide a facility for cultural activities. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 12 Maintenance Compound and Office - Sherando Park Description: This project involves the construction of a 1,200 - square -foot office and a 4,000 -square -foot storage shed for operations at Sherando Park. Capital Cost: $196,195 Justification: This facility will enable the county to maintain equipment and facilities in a more responsible and effective manner. The additional responsibility to maintain the outdoor facilities at Sherando High School increases the need for more storage, maintenance, and office space. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 13 Lake, 'Trails, and Parking with Two Irrigated Multi - Purpose Fields - Sherando Park Description: This project involves the development of a 12 acre lake; 1.5 mile trail system around the lake; 800 linear feet of access roadway; lighted parking lot with 125 spaces; and development of two irrigated 70 X 120 yard multi-purpose fields. Capital Cost: $793,000 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 14 Access Road, Parking, and Trails - Sherando Park Description: This project involves the development of an entrance and 1,500 linear foot of access roadway from Warrior Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 16 Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan "rive; a 50 space parking area; and 2.8 miles of trails. Capital Cost: $797,000 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY 07-08. County Administration Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Public Safety Center Description: This project recommends the development of a 23,000 -square -foot facility for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office. This will allow the Frederick County Sheriff's Office to vacate the Winchester -Frederick County Joint Judicial Center. Capital Cost: To be determined. Justification: The Frederick County Sheriff's Office currently has 80 employees that occupy space in the Winchester - Frederick County Joint Judicial Center (JJC). When this space was first occupied, there were 36 employees in the office. Representatives of the JJC have indicated that additional space is required for court officers and other arms of the judicial branch. Development of a new facility in the county will enhance the response time for emergency service in the safest possible manner. The current location of the Sheriff's Office in the JJC increases emergency response time due to congested streets and heavily populated areas, thus compromising safety to persons and property. Construction Schedule: To be determined. PRIORITY 2 New Frederick County Animal Shelter Description: This project involves the development of an 8,500- square -foot building with parking and fencing. This project could be constructed on the same property as the Public Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan PRIORITY 3 Page 17 Safety Center. Capital Cost: $1,254,000 Justification: This project will replace the existing Esther Boyd Animal Shelter which will be displaced by development of the MSW Landfill within the ensuing five years. Construction Schedule: Begin construction in FY 03-04; complete construction in FY 04-05. Annex Facilities Description: This project will consist of several facilities located at strategic locations throughout the county to house employees of the Sheriff's Office, the Treasurer's Office, and the Commissioner of Revenue's Office. A fire station would be included with offices located in the Fairfax Pike area. Capital Cost: $465,000 for Treasurer's Office Satellite Office; other estimates not available at time of printing. Justification: The development of satellite facilities along major transportation networks and in areas of dense population will provide ease of access for citizens and will improve services to the county. The county continues to experience a significant rate of growth; therefore, it is important to provide services within these areas instead of requiring citizens to confront congestion, limited parking, and accessibility in the City of Winchester. Construction Schedule: Phase -1 Site acquisition and construction FY 04-05; construction completion FY 05-06. New Fairfax Pike Fire/Rescue Station (coordinated with Annex Facilities request) Description: This project involves the construction of a new fire/rescue facility in southeast Frederick County between Stephen's City and Route 522, along the Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) corridor, which would also house satellite facilities for the Sheriff, Treasurer, and Board of Supervisors District Office. The fire and rescue component of the facility would involve an engine and rescue company. A 5 to 7 acre tract of land would be needed for this project. Capital Cost: Not yet determined. Justification: The need for a new station is in response to Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 18 Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan present and anticipated future growth ( Shenandoah development of Lake Frederick) in this area of the County. The new station would reduce fire and ems response time to the population of southeastern Frederick County. Construction Schedule: Completion FY 03-04. PRIORITY 4 Relocation of Round hill Fire/Rescue Station Description: This project includes the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot facility to accommodate ten or more pieces of emergency equipment and to house living and sleeping areas for staff. A community center of approximately 10,000 square feet with a capacity of 400 people is also planned; it would be used for fund raising events and other activities. The project would need a parcel of 3 to 5 acres. Capital Cost: Not yet determined Justification: The existing facility at serving the Round Hill areas is 50 years old and not large enough to accommodate the equipment needed to serve Round Hill community. This community includes approximately 9,000 households, three schools, and the Winchester Medical Center. Construction Schedule: Begin in FY 03-04. Winchester Regional Airport Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Airport Road (Route 645) Relocation - Construction Phase Description: The relocation and construction of approximately 3,000 linear feet of Airport Road along the southeastern boundary of the Winchester Regional Airport. Capital Cost: $2,100,000 80/20 - State/Local Share Local Share: $420,000. Justification: Removing this obstruction will allow approach minimums to be lowered which will enable the Winchester Regional Airport to accommodate aircraft in all weather conditions. Construction Schedule: FY 03-04. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Frederick County Page 19 Airfield Lighting Upgrade Description: The project involves the upgrade of the existing medium intensity runway lighting to high intensity runway lighting and the upgrade of the 2 -box precision approach path indicator (PAPI) to a 4 -box PAPI. Capital Cost: $75,000 80/20 - State/Local Share Local Share: $15,000. Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate the increase in aircraft that utilizes the Winchester Regional Airport. Construction Schedule: FY 03-04. Airfield Maintenance Building Description: Construction of a 3,800 -square -foot facility to accommodate the airport's maintenance equipment and maintenance work activities. Capital Cost: $300,000 State Grant - $90,000 Local Share: $210,000. Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate maintenance activities at the airport. Construction Schedule: FY 03-04. Land Acquisition - Bufflick Road - ParceIs 31, 46, & 53 Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Capital Cost: $823,750 Federal Grants - $111,375 Local Share: $142,475 State Grants - $569,900 Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within both the Airport's FAR Part 77 Primary Surface and/or approach surface and the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The FAA considers residential land use within the noise contour to be incompatible with airport operations and encourages airports to resolve such incompatibility through acquisition. Moreover, under the FAA's Part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia, the Airport is required to assume fee simple ownership of property located within the Primary 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Page 20 Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Surface. Construction Schedule: Begin process FY 04-05; complete acquisition FY 05-06. Handky Regional Library Project Priority List PRIORITY 1 Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension Description: The proposal is to expand the parking lot on the Lakeside Drive side of the library from 101 to 221 parking spaces, and to provide a sidewalk from Lakeside Drive to connect with the existing sidewalk at the library. Capital Cost: $ 228,468 Justification: The parking lot expansion is need to relieve overcrowding and to accommodate library patrons. The sidewalk is necessary to provide safer access for pedestrians to the library. Construction Schedule: FY 03-04 PRIORITY 2 Northern Frederick County Library Branch Description: Request to acquire 3 to 4 acres of land for a future branch library along 522 North near Cross Junction. The library proposes a 7,000 square foot branch with the possibility of expansion to 10,000 square feet. Parking would accommodate up to 35 vehicles. Capital Cost:$48,000 - Land Aquisition. Justification: There is no library in the area of the county to serve residents. The residents of the Gainesboro District comprise the largest population group the greatest distance from a library. The library would serve members of the population from toddlers to senior citizens. Construction Schedule: Land Acquisition FY 07-08; Construction proposed for FY 07-08 with library opening in FY 09-10. Frederick County 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan 2003-2004 Capital Improvements Plan Departwentai Share of Requested Capital! Projects 0 Public Schools ED Parks and Recreation ■ County Administration C3 Regional Airport ® Handley Regional Library Capital Improvements Plan Departmental Project Costs Public Schools $43,955,000 Parks and Recreation $10,193,343 County Administration $1,719,000 Regional Airport $789,275 Handley Regional Library $276,468 TOTAL: $56,933,086 2003 - 2004 FREDERICK COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS EVALUATION FORM LISTED BY DEPARTMENT; IN ORDER OF DEPARTMENT PRIORITY CRITERION WEIGHT Conform to Comp. Plan Welfare 3 Health, Safety, Welfaro 4 Legally Required 4 Distribute Services Z Emnomfc Impact 2 Related to Other Projects 3 Public Support 3 Department Priority 2 TOTAL LIBRARY Boyv�tan- Par_._; kut�Lai/�idewaik Lxtens?on Northern Frederick Librar�Branch SCHOOL SYSTEM fivni s Wood Middle School Renovation # 4 Middle School Construction Tratupartatign Fag:l:ty - -- #11 Elementary School Construction Administra�jonBuildutp;-Renvvahonand;Additictn—T ----- New Gainesboro Elementary School PARKS AND RECREATION - --------------- Field House/Indoor Pool Park Land East FC So ball Com lex - SP BaseballComplex-5P - - - — --- ------- -- Soccer ComPlex - SP - _ ... _ ----- Gwen Platt Area - CB - - - Skateboard Park/In-Line Hocked _ -- Tennta/13asketbai1Corn lex- CB -- - -- - - -- - ._.--- --- -- ----. ----__ - -, _ _-- _ _ Tennis/PirnicAreas -SP__-- &heltcr,5tage MaintenanceCompounrl/Offiee-SP iRke/I'ratlSlPttrkinA..,S`P_ - Access Road ParkinizITrails - SP — - — - `- — -- - --- — — _ AIRPORT Airport Road (Rt. 545) Relocation Airfield Lighting Upgrade Airfield Maintenance BIR1BIR1_4Lng-- - — an Acquisition - Bufflick Road COUNTY ADMINISTRATION Public Safety Center Nero Auroral Shelter _cBities flies; Corn ev Slterift2 Relocation of Round Hill F&R Note: Protects should be rated on a scale of I to 4; "4" indicating that a project most appropriately fits the criterion Note: Capital Improvement Projects in bold, italicprint represent new project requests or project modifications by department Note: CB identifies a Clearbrook Park capital project; SP identifies a Sherando Park capital project. FREDERICK COUNTY CAPI'T'AL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING MING PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA U:\COMMITrEES\CPPS\CIP\2003-2004 CIP\CIPProjectEvaluationCriteriaDescriptionsCPPS.wpd TOPIC DESCRIPTION WEIGHT 1 Conformance to Does the project conform to, or contribute to Comprehensive Plan the attainment of goals/objectives of the 3 Comprehensive Plan? Is the project consistent with established policies? 2 Public Health, Safety or Does the project improve conditions affecting Welfare health safety or welfare? Does it eliminate a 4 clear health or safety risk? 3 Legal Requirement Is the project required in order to meet a State or Federal mandate or some other legal 4 requirement? 4 Equitable Distribution of Does the project meet a special need of some Services segment of the population that has been identified as needing assistance? Would the 2 project provide equivalent services to a population group that is currently under- served relative to other areas of the county? 5 Economic Iyrpact Is the project essential to, or would it encourage some form of economic development? Would the project improve the 2 ---tax baseTreduce-operating expenses, produce - revenue, or otherwise have a positive effect on the local economy? 6 Coordination with other Is the project necessary for the successful Projects completion of other projects? Is the project 3 part of a larger project? 7 Public Support Are county residents fully informed and 3 supportive of the proposed project? 8 Department Priority Ratings are provided for the top four projects 2 submitted by each agency or department. U:\COMMITrEES\CPPS\CIP\2003-2004 CIP\CIPProjectEvaluationCriteriaDescriptionsCPPS.wpd Owner Acres Oates 55-A-7 24.51 Oates 55 -A -7A 21.9 Schwartzman 55-A-8 25.9 j Gregg 55 -A -129A 33.0 Stotler 55-A-9 26.19 Stolter 55 -A -9A ---- Hulver 55-A-6 24.04 Kugler 44 -A -28E 9.6 Kugler 44 -A -28F 5.25 Boden 44 -A -28C 4.3 Boden 44 -A -28D 5.0 Penton 55-A-10 28.55 Penton 55-7-12 14.48 Jobe 44 -A -28A 20.46 Jobe 44 -A -28G 5.0 Uunger 44 -A -28B 25.0 Miller 44 -A -28I 8.0 Evliya 55-A-129 33.08 TOTAL: 314.26 Acres Comprehensive Plans and November 18, 2002 Programs Subcommittee Mr. John Light, Chairman 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Chairman Light: We, the undersigned, request that our land, collectively, be included in the Northeast Land Use Plan and considered for the same use as Shockey's. Attached is a copy of the county tax map with the Shockey/McCann land in orange and our properties highlighted in yellow. You can see that our properties are surrounded by the recently rezoned McTiernan Farm, Redbud and Millbrook Schools, and the proposed development by Don Shockey and McCann Estate. Please respond prior to the next meeting to advise us of any information or representation needed. You may call, G. Rodney Oates, at 545-7823 or fax to 545- 4001 and information will be dispersed to everyone below. F_ 7'A ff- S' �1- ��_� L•'2- ! )) 7 11,2 �/�� ♦ rte,,, ,. ' v r .�►'� //�� " " 1��IIi.._ :Iii am 1I '1 i GGG"' r EWA Q��•�o�'�e`''aa��p■ L� iggg ■ ao a From: Ross Beck Fax: +1(540)722-3621 To: Eric Lawrence Fax: 6656395 Page 1 of 1 Monday, November 25, 2002 2:40 PM 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 November 25, 2002 RE: Inclusion of Woods Mill Subdivision (WMS), in the UDAISWSA Dear Mr. Lawrence The citizens of WMS hereby request inclusion in the UDA and SWSA district for the North East Comprehensive Plan (NECP). It is our understanding that the NECP is under revision_ WMS is located in Stonewall District between the McTiernan property to the south, and the Shockey property to the northwest. Both of these neighboring properties have, or are being considered for inclusion in the UDA and SWSA. The inclusion of WMS in the UDA and SWSA will create a more cohesive plan for the Northeast portion of Frederick County. The members of the WMS have signed a petition in support of the inclusion and would like to formally present it at your next board meeting. Ross A Beck President of Woods Mill Homeowners Association