Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout48-03 Senseny Greenwood Carwash - Automatic Carwash - Shawnee - Backfile (2)CASH • RECEIPT ' `-� ..: 14. l I Wo' ; wro , /� .. �, .[ �.a.awls ACCOUNT HOW PAID SITE PLAN TRACKING SHEET Date: / ,>p o3 File opened 1 ao o-� Reference Manual updated/number assigned I I/,�o D-base updated 11. ZD.03 File given to Renee' to update Application Action Summary &Iel CLOSE OUT FILE: V o Approval (or den al) letter mailed to applicant/copy made for file File stamped "approved", "denied" or 'Vithdrawn" Reference Manual updated - l__.__ ..-J-. -J UK FLL- f�bJ� "5 7 C-crtS y 10() -7 o6v (o-Sc l i -0 -73 SITE PLAN APPLICATION CHECKLIST The checklist shown below specifies the information which is required to be submitted as part of the site plan application. The Department of Planning & Development will review the application to ensure that it is complete prior to accepting it. If any portion of the application is not complete, it will be returned to the applicant(s). (1) One (1) set of approved comment sheets are required from each relevant review agency prior to final approval of a site plan. It is recommended that applicants contact the Department of Planning & Development to determine which review agencies are relevant to their site plan application. A list of potentially relevant review agencies is shown below: t/ Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Department of GIS (Geographic Information Services) Frederick County Sanitation Authority Frederick County Building Inspections Department Frederick County Department of Public Works Frederick County Fire Marshal Frederick County Health Department Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) City of Winchester Town of Stephens City Town of Middletown Frederick County / Winchester Airport Authority (2) One (1) copy of the Site Plan application form. (3) Payment of the site plan review fee. V (4) One (1) reproducible copy of the Site Plan (if required). Fs I COUN f K Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 August 14, 2006 Mr. Niki Adhikusuma Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Voiding of Site Plan #48-03; Senseny Greenwood Carwash Property Identification Number (PIN): 65A-7-8 & 9 Dear Niki: This correspondence is to inform you that we are voiding the above referenced application from our system. This site plan was officially submitted in November of 2003 and has been inactive since December of 2003. Also, since the above referenced property is no longer owned by the parties that submitted the site plan, this plan is invalid. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner 11 CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • Colony Realty Company 112 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Attn: Ms Gail H. Farrace Dear Ms Farrace, February 17, 2004 How gratified we are to learn that there is someone who is genuinely concerned about the suitability of a business to be located adjacent to our residential community. At the meeting when the B2 zoning was approved we were understandably fearful that some undesirable business such as a bar, filling station or car wash might be built. We were assured by the representative from Greenway Engineering that was handling this matter for the owner that the use would be "neighborhood friendly" — probably an office or small retail establishment. Given that assurance, we had no objection to the rezoning. A year later a zoning variance meeting was held to consider the request of a potential owner of the property to reduce the required 50 foot space buffer to 10 feet in order to accommodate an automatic car wash that would operate 24/7! A roaring car wash is probably the most unfriendly business permissible under B2 zoning. We have been fighting it every way we can since that meeting. Fortunately, the Planning Commission denied the variance but we were led to believe that the engineers are trying to develop a plan that will accommodate a car wash on the reduced land area. A car wash would seriously impact the livability of our neighborhood and the value of our homes. As to your request about the acceptability of a plant nursery on the property, we feel that such a business could indeed be "neighborhood friendly". However, we do have a couple of concerns: 1. While the County has no architectural standards, we would suggest that any building be in keeping with our residential neighborhood — no tent or Quonset but type tin building. 2. The lighting should not be annoying to the nearby residents. 3. The property will probably be fenced ft prevent theft. We feel that fences on the west and south sides, abutting residential property, should be 8 feet high and solid. The remainder could be chain link fence, softened by plantings or something more decorative • Other suitable uses for the property would be offices or small retail establishments, as were proposed in the original zoning meeting. Unfortunately, the list of businesses permitted under B2 zoning includes a great many that members of the Planning Commission would not want beside their homes either. But we understand that the Commissioners have no authority to deny approval no matter how inappropriate, so long as that business is on the list.. We repeat, your concern about what would be appropriate on that site is a breath of fresh air. Someone is applying good judgement and common sense to this situation. We will be pleased to meet with you at any time to discuss matters as they may arise.. Yours truly, Saratoga Meadows Homeowners Assoc do President John Harler Vice President Ed Moore _ Secretary Mary Margaret Moore' Treasurer Bob Stiff cc: Jeremy F. Camp Planner II E • COMMONWEALTH of VlRCjINIA Philip A. Shucet COMMISSIONER February 3, 2004 Mr. & Mrs. Bob Stiff 104 Stirrup Cup Circle Winchester, VA 22603 Dear Mr. & Mrs Stiff. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDINBURG, VA 22824 JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 I am writing in reference to your letter received January 22, 2004 concerning the building of a carwash at the corner of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road. The owner of this property has already submitted a site plan for the carwash. The site plan was reviewed and meets VDOT's commercial entrance criteria. Therefore, the entrance has been approved. Traffic volumes were considered, however, except for peak hours, traffic flow fell within VDOT's acceptable criteria. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Since el , v Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer L_AI/r xc: Mr. Eric Lawrence FEB 0 5 2004 VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Rscel lM VQOT .�nbUrJ eS1d4►flY JAN 2 2 2004 ,AU C44-5 /LCI rv� IA21 7" tk �r4 �.Il Its • • 1 / 14/2004 To: Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission Dear Sirs and Mesdames, We wonder whether the proposal to put a car wash on Senseny Road adjacent to our residential development is typical of what homeowners can expect from our County Planners and Supervisors. The fact that it just won't go away leads us to ask "Who sgeaks for the homeowners?" Interestingly, three car washes have been constructed recently in Winchester and nearby communities. Each of these has been located on maior State and/or Federal highways, in commercial zones and far removed from any residences.. We believe that this is not accidental.. These sites were selected because they are appropriate for such a business. Specifically, these are the particulars for each of the sites: A unit built near Berkeley Springs, about a mile south of the city on U S 522, in a totally commercial area. The rear of the site backs up to a steep embankment. Businesses are located across the road and on both sides. There are no residences within half a mile. Heave truck traffic passes regularly in front of the entrance. 2. A facility was recently built south of Martinsburg on U S Route 11, over a mile out of the city. The property abuts the Martinsburg Airport where the now Air Natioonal Guard Blanes land and take off at all hours of the day and night. There are no homes nearby and it adjoins an auto dealership. U S 11 is a very busy highway with considerable truck traffic. The noise of the car wash blends very nicely with the roar of the aircraft! 3 A new car wash is nearing completion on Route 7 (Berryville Pike) in Frederick County.. This is a busy 4 lane highway with considerable heavy truck traffic. The site is in a totally commercial area with a Sheetz filling station and and Exxon station directly across the road, a pool maintenance company beside it and a large warehousing complex behind it.. The nearest residences are over 500 feet away from the car wash site. Again, the extreme noise of a car wash will have no impact on any residential areas.. How is it that Saratoga Meadows residents are so unfortunate as to have a car wash proposea aaiacent to our residences. aestroying our property varies ana cnanging the entire character of our community? And the County Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors seem willing to allow this project to go forward.. This is entirely unreasonable, regardless of what the zoning code may indicate. Still further, the County Noise Ordinance should prohibit it. `, o sy automatic modern car washes are improperly permitted under B2 zoning, at least without restrictions. To proceed with this proposal would be a travesty, Common decency and respect for the rights of we homeowners should stop this effort immediately. There are many potential sites around Winchester where a car wash could be built without impacting residential ar Sincerely, Saratoga :Meadows Homeowners Cj JAN 2 1 2004 9 0 et-22, 2003 Charles G. DeHaven, Jr. Chairman, Frederick County Planning Commission Dear Mr. DeHaven, It appears that we are being forced to revisit the matter of a proposal to build a car wash on the property at the corner of Senseny and Greenwood Roads, Residents of the adjoining Saratoga Meadows Subdivision have repeatedly cited the hardship and substantial detriment such an installation would have on their property — its ambience, serenity, security and value. We have written letters to County and State Officials, letters to the editors of the local newspapers, talked with Commissioners and Board Members, submitted a petition with nearly 100 signatures opposing the car wash and presented our case at Commission meetings. The consistent response we have received is that since car washes are permitted under B2 zoning, the Coumty is powerless to prohibit its approval. Several provisions of the Frederick County Code appear to refute this assertion, providing a basis for further review and consideration. Chapter 165, Article 12 of the Code states "Impact Analyses. A report analyzing the impact of any rezoning shall be required to be submitted by the applicant for any application for rezoning. Tile requirement may be exempted if the application involves less than 20 acres ....if no significant impacts are anticipated. (Since the Commission was led to believe that a small office or retail shop would be the proposed use, the analysis did not indicate any significant inl] act. However a noisy car wash, open 24 hours, 7 days a week is quite another matter). Under Item C of this chapter, "Tile impact analysis shall include ....the use of surrounding land and potential economic, physical visual nuisance or other impacts on surrounding properties." (There is no question whether a noisy car wash adjoining the back yards of $250 - $350M residences would severely impact these properties economically, visually, and most assuredly, the extreme noise would be an intolerable nuisance). Chapter 188 states "Unreasonable noise unlawful." Chapter 122 states "Causing a public nuisance is unlawful." A nuisance is defined as: "That which annoys, vexes ... or by its existence annoys causes iiiiuly or darnaue to others." (If a car wash was built beside your home we are certain that you would find the noise "unreasonable", a "public nuisance" that "annovs, vexes and causes damage." The damage would be to your quality of life and to the value of your property.) 4, Chapter 165, Article 12, C(2) further states that the impact analysis shall include: "Tile anticipated increase of traffic to be generated as a result of the rezoning!." (While a car wash might not add significantly to the traffic volume in the area, this section of the County is growing very rapidly. Hundreds of new homes have been built in the last 3 or 4 years and many hundreds more are planned. In addition, we understand that Greenwood Road is to be upgraded and rerouted at its south end to provide an improved route to Millwood Pike. This sole direct route between Routes 7 & 50 being the only one in the county, is certain to experience increased usage. Tile traffic has already grown exponentially and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The single driveway for the car wash is near the intersection. Ingress and egress could be difficult as traffic volume increases.) e. We contend that no analysis was conducted on the impact of a car wash on this site. How could an imp analysis be conducted without knowing what kind of business would be put there? Surely the impact of a car wash is far different from that of an office or small retail establishment. We believe that if properly and objectively done, the result of an analysis would, without question, dictate that a car wash should not be built adjacent to our residential property, The elements to be considered in an impact analysis include such items as noxious odors, air pollution and, according to the Code provisions cited in the foregoing, noise. The County denied permission for the construction of a glass plant because of air pollution concerns. We feel that it would be equally appropriate to deny permission for a car wash to be built beside a residential neighborhood because of noise pollution concerns. In our opinion, the County should hire an independent engineering company to conduct a test at a modern "touchless" car wash, recording decibel levels produced and advise whether such noise levels would constitute an objectionable "nuisance" if located with in 50 feet of residential propgrty. If the County is not prepared to do this, some of the residents of Saratoga Meadows will pay to have it done, assuming the Commissioners are willing to consider the data. Including automatic car washes on the list of acceptable businesses under B2 zoning seems inappropriate. Their ultra high velocity water jets virtually blast everything but the paint off the car. The noise generated is consequently very high. After washing, the car is dried by means of high velocity air blowers — even noisier, Still further, large, industrial style vacuum cleaners are used by motorists to clean their car interiors. These, too are very noisy, And often customers leave their car doors open with the car radio blaring while they clean the car interior. To have this all going on a few feet from your back yard would be intolerable. These car washes should be sited in commercial areas, well removed from residences. We realize that the County cannot delete car washes from the B2 classification at this time and use this action as a means for rejecting the current proposal. But we do believe that the prior lack of an impact analysis on a car wash at this site and requirements of the Code elements cited earlier warrant a new look at it. While the Commission's actions are, in large part, dictated by the rules laid down in the County Code, any reasonable person would expect that there would be some way to inject at least a modicum of common sense in the decision making process. Perhaps the code itself needs revision, such as establishing an Architectural Review Panel, for example. Under the existing procedure, a tin shed or Quonset but could be built on the property. The point is that the Commission should have the authority to review a proposal and rule on its appropriateness for the site. Each case is different and, while the Code can lay out specific guidelines, it should no be so rigid as to prohibit the exercise of good judgement. My greatest fear is that a car wash would change our neighborhood, quality of life and would reduce the fair market value of our own and the neighboring properties. So I'm asking for your support before this irreversible decision is made. Sincerely, (1 Bob Stiff 6G')-15"79y JAN 1 2 2004 cc: :Messrs Jeremy Camp & Eric Lawrence Frederick County Planning Commission Members Todd E. Taylor ,C Y i 117 Steeplechase Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 !Forth Kent Street, 4 h Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Dear 'NIr. Davenport: I am \vriting this letter to voice my oppDsi ioj3_Eor Variance 0803, Hazel Lambert. It is my understanding that the proposed variance is for the elimination of [he required 50-foot zoning district buffer along the entire western property line. The subject property is zoned B-2 and is identified as parcel identification numbers (PI\z) 65A-7-8 and 65A-7-9 (located at the intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road). N1v wife and I have recently purchased a house in the Saratoga JIeadows subdivision. We purchased this property to enjoy the quiet country setting it presented. I understand that the subject property is zoned B-2 and is permitted to support a business use. Nly concern pertains to the elimination of the 50-foot zoning district buffer. As aplanner for the LOudoun County Zoning Administratjon, I understand the importance of the buffer. I do feel that in some situations it is certainly appropriate to modify the County's zoning requirements. However, I do not feel that this is one of those situations. The B-2 zoning district allows some uses that are questionable in regards to being appropriate neighbors to residential properties. I do not believe that there is an adequate justification for the elimination of this buffer, nor do I believe that granting such a variance will relieve a hardship for the property owner. There are plenty of permitted uses in the B-2 district that will fit on the property and be able to provide the required buffering. I have no problem with a business use on the subject property. I just hope that the County will take into consideration what use s appyrooriate for the prc,El!y. Nly neighbors have informed me that a car wash is the proposed use. To me. when you have a use that is not exactly compatible with it's adjacent properties, making the use even more incompatible by eliminating a necessary buffer is not an option. Thank you for your time and consideration. Unfortunately. I will not be able to attend the public meeting in August. Please make this letter available to the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Sincerely, 7i Todd E. Taylor • r ���rrr�,�r� � Key Points to be Made at Zoning Board Meeting �r r / Mark net with homeowners before the Lambert property was rezoned to explore the possible objections they might have to the rezoning. The affected homeowners voiced concerns about the type of business that might be built, specifically identifying gasoline filling stations (fumes, possible danger of fire or explosion), bars (Loud music and noise, fights in the parking area, etc. in the wee hours) and a car wash (because of the extreme noise, especially from the new automatic units) Mark assured the homeowners that no such objectionable business would be considered, -- that the homeowners need have no further concern. At the Planning Committee meeting prior to rezoning approval, Mr. Stiff, a homeowner whose property abuts the rezoned parcel, spoke for about 10 minutes, reiterating the concerns he had for possible impact of an unsuitable business both on his property and that of the other residents of Saratoga Meadows. Mr Smith indicated to the committee that he had no knowledge of the intended use for the property. While the Committee has no authority to restrict the type of business use, their recommendations included a comment that the impact of the business on the adjoining residential property should be considered.. In the application submitted to the Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval, Mr Smith, on behalf of the owner, proffered 10 prohibited uses for the property, including filling stations, bars, miniature golf courses, batting cages, adult retail, lawn and garden shop etc. but car wash was conspicuous by its absence! After our repeated request to prohibit a car wash, it was purposely left off the prohibited list. We find it difficult to believe that this omission was accidental. Now we are told that it cannot be added. after the rezoning was approved. 2. Impact Study Inadequacies. Per County Ordinance 165-12, an impact analysis must be conducted before any property is rezoned. According to the minutes of the Planning Committee, an analysis of a sort was done, but without knowledge of what business was to be built on the property, they assessed the impact of an office on that site. Mark Smith had led them to believe that an office or small store would be the likely use. How could an impact analysis be conducted without knowing what kind of business would be there? The impact of a car wash is far different from that of an office. The County has a ordinance to deal with "unreasonable noise" (Chapter 11.8.1) and and a section that deals with nuisances, (Chapter 122). A nuisance is defined as "That which annoys, vexes, etc." Be assured that the noise from automatic car washes would "annoy and vex" the residents of the adjoining property. If the terrible noise from automatic car washes does not qualify for consideration of its impact on an adjoining residential area,, what good is an impact analysis? We should think the impact of the business on surrounding properties is one of the reasons an impact analysis is done! 3. Zoning/Planning Process Questioned It appears that the County is "Spot Zoning" without any overall plan regarding the mixing of residential and business properties. To allow business parcels in the midst of residences will result in a hodgepodge of suburban sprawl that will decline in value because of the unsuitability of the area for high quality residences. There is ample evidence of this in the county already and to see it continuing is most disturbing. Homeowners who invest in a new home have to have some assurance that an undesirable business won't be put beside his home, destroying its livability and value. 4. Inadequacy of Present Ordinances to Regulate Zoning. We were shocked to learn that the County has no authority to require proffers by property owners, prohibiting certain aspects of the use of their property. So long as a business is on the list of possible uses for B2 property, any business can be built on any site so zoned with no possibility for the County to prohibit it, regardless of the circumstances. It is inconceivable that the County would totally relinquish all control. The County should also modify the Ordinance regarding Impact Analyses to provide the option for the Planning Commission to consider whether a second analysis should be conducted before agreeing to allow a particular business to occupy a particular site. Such a procedure would be entirely reasonable and could eliminate problems such as the one we are facing here tody. Competing Car Wash We note that an automatic car wash is to be built on Berryville Pike, opposite the Sheetz filling station. This is a major highway with considerable heavy truck traffic. The site is in a commercial district, with no residences within hundreds of feet.and no immediate neighbors. This is the kind of location that is suitable for a car wash, not beside a residential area. The new unit on Route 522 near Berkeley Springs is similarly located. A mile fxom the village, on a busy highway and in a 100% commercial zone. Why destroy the character of our residential community and our property values by putting a car wash beside us? Zl 0 0- Zoning Regulation Considerations 1. The objective of the following is to avoid zoning catastrophes like the notorious pig farm fiasco that occurred south of here a few years ago and the potential disaster nearly foisted on us. II Spot business zoning of small plots in residential neighborhoods should be avoided. An overall plan should be developed, providing for groups of appropriate small businesses in or near residential areas, with consideration given to adjoining residences to avoid noise, noxious odors or other nuisances from impacting them unfavorably. III Category B1 Concerns A. Delete car washes from this classification. Automatic car washes definitely do not belong in or near residences due to the extreme noise. Even 1 customer operated wand type car washes present a problem because of the noisy associated industrial vacuum cleaners. k'Fhe-1atter-might b(--acceptable ithsuitable buffering or screening, but should not be permitted to operate 24/ B. Restaurants need to be better defined. A 24/7 operation or one that is mainly a drinking establishment should require a conditional use permit. This would allow the Board to assess the suitability of the intended use for the site. IV Category B2 Concerns A. Delete automatic car washes (or require a 300 or 500 foot separation from residential property.) B. Treat automobile dealers and gasoline service stations as separate uses. The former would not be particularly objectionable beside a residential area with proper screening but a service station (especially a 24/7 operation) would be highly objectionable. Factors include noise, fumes, fire or explosion hazard, threat of underground tank leakage into basements, etc. Reasonable separation from residential property should be required. C. Fire stations, companies and rescue squads. A fairly sizeable space buffer should be required if put in a residential area and, hopefully, it would be part of a group of businesses rather than a sole business unit in the midst of residences. D. The same conditions as above should apply to commercial. sport and recreation clubs, outdoor commercial batting cages, amusement and recreation services operated indoors, motion picture theaters, hotels and motels, organization hotels and lodging, etc. • V. Somehow, the Board must have the ability to apply common sense to specific V. situations. It is difficult, if not impossible to frame regulations that will cover every possible set of circumstances. While we recognize that a property owner must know what is or is not allowable with regard to the ultimate use of his property, the County must somehow retain the right to allow common sense to be exercised in the decision making process. c 2003 Charles G. DeHaven, Jr. Chairman, Frederick County Planning Commission Dear Mr. DeHaven, It appears that we are being forced to revisit the matter of a proposal to build a car wash on the property at the corner of Senseny and Greenwood Roads. Residents of the adjoining Saratoga Meadows Subdivision have repeatedly cited the hardship and substantial detriment such an installation would have on their property — its ambience, serenity, security and value. We have written letters to County and State Officials, letters to the editors of the local newspapers, talked with Commissioners and Board Members, submitted a petition with nearly 100 signatures opposing the car wash and presented our case at Commission meetings. The consistent response we have received is that since car washes are permitted under B2 zoning, the County is powerless to prohibit its approval. Several provisions of the Frederick County Code appear to refute this assertion, providing a basis for further review and consideration. Chapter 165, Article 12 of the Code states "Impact Analyses. A report analyzing the impact of any rezoning shall be required to be submitted by the applicant for any application for rezoning. The requirement may be exempted if the application involves less than 20 acres ....if no significant impacts are anticipated, (Since the Commission was led to believe that a small office or retail shop would be the proposed use, the analysis did not indicate any significant impact. However a noisy car wash, open 24 hours, 7 days a week is quite another matter). 2. Under Item C of this chapter, "The impact analysis shall include ....the use of surrounding land and potential economic, physical visual nuisance or gther impacts on surrounding properties." (There is no question whether a noisy car wash adjoining the back yards of $250 - S350M residences would severely impact these properties economically, visually, and most assuredly, the extreme noise would be an intolerable nuisance). Chapter 188 states "Unreasonable nghg unlawful." Chapter 122 states "Causing a public nuisance is unlawful." A nuisance is defined as: "That which annoys. vexes ... or by its existence annoys causes injtily or damage to others." (If a car wash was built beside your home we are certain that you would find the noise "unreasonable". a ',public nuisance" that "annovs. vexes and causes damage." The damage would be to your Qualms of life and to the value of your property.) 4, Chapter 165, Article 12, C(2) further states that the impact analysis shall include: "The anticipated increase of traffic to be generated as a result of the rezoning!." (While a car wash might not add significantly to the traffic volume in the area, this section of the County is growing very rapidly. Hundreds of new homes have been built in the last 3 or 4 years and many hundreds more are planned. In addition, we understand that Greenwood Road is to be upgraded and rerouted at its south end to provide an improved route to Millwood Pike. This sole direct route between Routes 7 & 50 being the only one in the county, is certain to experience increased usage. The traffic has already grown exponentially and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The single driveway for the car wash is near the intersection. Ingress and egress could be difficult as traffic volume increases.) • • CICot We contend that no analysis was conducted on the impact of a car wash on this site. How could an impact analysis be conducted without knowing what kind of business would be put there? Surely the impact of a car wash is far different from that of an office or small retail establishment. We believe that if properly and objectively done, the result of an analysis would, without question, dictate that a car wash should not be built adjacent to our residential property. The elements to be considered in an impact analysis include such items as noxious odors, air pollution and, according to the Code provisions cited in the foregoing, noise• The County denied permission for the construction of a glass plant because of air pollution concerns. We feel that it would be equally appropriate to deny permission for a car wash to be built beside a residential neighborhood because of noise Wilution concerns. In our opinion, the County should hire an independent engineering company to conduct a test at a modern "touchless" car wash, recording decibel levels produced and advise whether such noise levels would constitute an objectionable "nuisance" if located with in 50 feet of residential property. If the County is not prepared to do this, some of the residents of Saratoga Meadows will pay to have it done, assuming the Commissioners are willing to consider the data. Including automatic car washes on the list of acceptable businesses under B2 zoning seems inappropriate. Their ultra high velocity water jets virtually blast everything but the paint off the car. The noise generated is consequently very high. After washing, the car is dried by means of high velocity air blowers — even noisier. Still further, large, industrial style vacuum cleaners are used by motorists to clean their car interiors. These, too are very noisy; And often customers leave their car doors open with the car radio blaring while they clean the car interior. To have this all going on a few feet from your back yard would be intolerable. These car washes should be sited in commercial areas, well removed from residences. We realize that the County cannot delete car washes from the B2 classification at this time and use this action as a means for rejecting the current proposal. But we do believe that the prior lack of an impact analysis on a car wash at this site and requirements of the Code elements cited earlier warrant a new look at it. While the Commission's actions are, in large part, dictated by the rules laid down in the County Code, any reasonable person would expect that there would be some way to inject at least a modicum of common sense in the decision making process. Perhaps the code itself needs revision, such as establishing an Architectural Review Panel, for example. under the existing procedure, a tin shed or Quonset but could be built on the propem-. The point is that the Commission should have the authority to review a proposal and rule on its appropriateness for the site. Each case is different and, while the Code can lay out specific guidelines, it should no be so rigid as to prohibit the exercise of good judgement. My greatest fear is that a car wash would change our neighborhood, quality of life and would reduce the fair market value of our own and the neighboring properties. So I'm asking for your support before this irreversible decision is made. Sincerely, Bob Stiff cc: :Messrs Jeremy Camp & Eric Lawrence Frederick County Planning Commission Members JA N 12 2004 Todd E. Taylor \/ i 117 Steeplechase Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 !Worth Kent Street, 4 h Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Nlr. Davenport: I am writing this letter to voice my opp-osilion.lor Variance 0803, Hazel Lambert. It is my understanding that the proposed variance is for the elimination of the required 50-foot zoning district buffer along the entire western property line. The subject property is zoned B-2 and is identified as parcel identification numbers (PI\') 65A-7-8 and 65A-7-9 (located a[ the intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road). �lv wife and I have recently purchased a house in the Saratoga Meadows subdivision. We purchased [his property to enjoy the quiet country setting it presented. 1 understand that the subject property is zoned B-2 and is permitted to support a business use. [My concern pertains to the elimination of the 50-foot zoning district buffer. As a planner for the Loudoun County Zoning Administration, I understand the importance of the buffer. 1. do feel that in some situations it is certainly appropriate to modify the County's zoning requirements. However, I do not feel that this is one of those situations. The B-2 zoning district allows some uses that are questionable in regards to being appropriate neighbors to residential properties. I do not believe that there is an adequate justification for the elimination of this buffer; nor do I believe that granting such a variance .will relieve a hardship for the property owner. There are plenty of permitted uses in the B-2 dist!ict that will fit on the property and be able to prop ide the required buffering. I have no problem with a business use on the subject property. I just hope that the County will take into consideration %=hat use is appropriate for the nropert_y. Noy neighbors have informed me that a car wash is the proposed use. To me. when you have a use tha[ is not exactly compatible with it's adjacent properties. making the use even more incompatible by eliminating a necessary buffer is not an option. Thank you for your time and consideration. Unfortunately. [ \will not be able to attend the public meeting in :-august. Please make this letter available to the members of the Board of Zoning .Appeals. Sincerely, C JAN 1 2 2004 Todd E. Taylor Key Points to be Made at Zoning Board Meeting Mark net with homeowners before the Lambert property was rezoned to explore the possible objections they might have to the rezoning. The affected homeowners voiced concerns about the type of business that might be built, specifically identifying gasoline filling stations (fumes, possible danger of fire or explosion), bars (loud music and noise, fights in the parking area, etc. in the wee hours) and a car wash (because of the extreme noise, especially from the new automatic units) Mark assured the homeowners that no such objectionable business would be considered. -- that the homeowners need have no further concern. At the Planning Committee meeting prior to rezoning approval, Mr. Stiff, a homeowner whose property abuts the rezoned parcel, spoke for about 10 minutes, reiterating the concerns he had for possible impact of an unsuitable business both on his property and that of the other residents of Saratoga Meadows. Mr Smith indicated to the committee that he had no knowledge of the intended use for the property. While the Committee has no authority to restrict the type of business use, their recommendations included a comment that the impact of the business on the adjoining residential property should be considered.. In the application submitted to the Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval, Mr Smith, on behalf of the owner, proffered 10 prohibited uses for the property, including filling stations, bars, miniature golf courses, batting cages, adult retail, lawn and garden shop etc. but car wash was conspicuous by its absence! After our repeated request to prohibit a car wash, it was purposely left off the prohibited list. We find it difficult to believe that this omission was accidental. Now we are told. that it cannot be added. after the rezoning was approved. Impact Study Inadequacies. Per County Ordinance 165-12, an impact analysis must be conducted before any property is rezoned. According to the minutes of the Planning Committee, an analysis of a sort was done, but without knowledge of what business was to be built on the property, they assessed the impact of an office on that site. Mark Smith had led them to believe that an office or small store would be the likely use. How could an impact analysis be conducted without knowing what kind of business would be there? The impact of a car wash is far different from that of an office. The County has a ordinance to deal with "unseasonable noise" (Chapter 11.8.1) and and a section that deals with nuisances, (Chapter 122). A nuisance is defined as "That which annoys, vexes, etc." Be assured that the noise from automatic car washes would "annoy and vex" the residents of the adjoining property. If the terrible noise from automatic car washes does not qualify for consideration of its impact on an adjoining residential area,, what good is an impact analysis? We should think the impact of the business on surrounding properties is one of the reasons an impact analysis is done! 3. Zoning/Planning Process Questioned It appears that the County is "Spot Zoning" without any overall plan regarding the mining of residential and business properties. To allow business parcels in the midst of residences will result in a hodgepodge of suburban sprawl that will decline in value because of the unsuitability of the area for high quality residences. There is ample evidence of this in the county already and to see it continuing is most disturbing. Homeowners who invest in a new home have to have some assurance that an undesirable business won't be put beside his home, destroying its livability and value. 4. Inadequacy of Present Ordinances to Regulate Zoning. We were shocked to learn that the County has no authority to require proffers by property owners, prohibiting certain aspects of the use of their property. So long as a business is on the list of possible uses for B2 property, any business can be built on anX site so zoned with no possibility for the County to prohibit it, regardless of the circumstances. It is inconceivable that the County would totally relinquish all control. The County should also modify the Ordinance regarding Impact Analyses to provide the option for the Planning Commission to consider whether a second analysis should be conducted before agreeing to allow a particular business to occupy a particular site. Such a procedure would be entirely reasonable and could. eliminate problems such as the one we are facing here tody. 5. Competing Car Wash We note that an automatic car wash is to be built on Berryville Pike, opposite the Sheetz filling station. This is a major highway with considerable heavy truck traffic. The site is in a commercial district, with no residences within hundreds of feet.and no immediate neighbors. This is the kind of location that is suitable for a car wash, not beside a residential area. The new unit on Route 522 near Berkeley Springs is similarly located. A mile from the village, on a busy highway and in a 100% commercial zone. Why destroy the character of our residential community and our property values by putting a car wash beside us? It r1 LJ /r / / /�-(- iy %i'i C `U / / / / Zoning Regulation Considerations 1. The objective of the following is to avoid zoning catastrophes like the notorious pig farm fiasco that occurred south of here a few years ago and the potential disaster nearly foisted on us. II Spot business zoning of small plots in residential neighborhoods should be avoided. An overall plan should be developed, providing for groups of appropriate small businesses in or near residential areas, with consideration given to adjoining residences to avoid noise, noxious odors or other nuisances from impacting them unfavorably. III Category BI Concerns A. Delete car washes from this classification. Automatic car washes definitely do not belong in or near residences due to the extreme noise. Even customer operated wand type car washes present a problem because of the noisy associated industrial vacuum cleaners. -(T-he-1atter-might be -acceptable with,s-Ldtable buffering or screening, but should not be permitted to operate 24/ B. Restaurants need to be better defined. A 24/7 operation or one that is mainly a drinking establishment should require a conditional use permit. This would allow the Board to assess the suitability of the intended use for the site. IV Category B2 Concerns A. Delete automatic car washes (or require a 300 or 500 foot separation from residential property.) B. Treat automobile dealers and gasoline service stations as separate uses. The former would not be particularly objectionable beside a residential area with proper screening but a service station (especially a 24/7 operation) would be highly objectionable. Factors include noise, fumes, fire or explosion hazard, threat of underground tank leakage into basements, etc. Reasonable separation from residential property should be required. C. Fire stations, companies and rescue squads. A fairly sizeable space buffer should be required if put in a residential area and, hopefully, it would be part of a group of businesses rather than a sole business unit in the midst of residences. D. The same conditions as above should apply to commercial sport and recreation clubs, outdoor commercial batting cages, amusement and recreation services operated indoors, motion picture theaters, hotels and motels, organization hotels and lodging, etc. • • V. Somehow, the Board must have the ability to apply common sense to specific V. situations. It is difficult, if not impossible to fi ame regulations that will cover every possible set of circumstances. While we recognize that a property owner must know what is or is not allowable with regard to the ultimate use of his property, the County must somehow retain the right to allow common sense to be exercised in the decision making process. 0 0 Chapter 118, NOISE [HISTORY: Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick 5-12- 1993. Amendments noted where applicable.] GENERAL REFERENCES Noise caused by animals -- See Ch. 4-8, Art. If. § 118-1. Unreasonable noise unlawful. A. It shall be unlawful, after complaint from any person annoyed, disturbed or vexed by unnecessary and unreasonable noise and after notice by the Sheriff to the person creating such noise or to the owner, custodian or person in control or possession of the property from which such noise emanates or arises, for such person to suffer or allow such unnecessary and unreasonable noise to continue. B. This chapter shall be applicable from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., inclusive, each day, to the following zoning classifications as indicated on the Frederick County Zoning Map: E RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District R5 Residential Recreational Community District MHI Mobile Home Community District § 118-2. Enforcement. Enforcement of this chapter shall be by the Sheriff of Frederick County. § 118-3. Violations and penalties. A violation of this chapter shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.) for the first offense and a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000.) for each subsequent offense. Each such occurrence shall constitute a separate offense. t�. Chapter 122, NUISANCES -------- ---- ...... u 0 [HISTORY: Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick 9-12- 1984 as Ch. 14 of the 1984 Frederick County Code. Amendments noted where applicable.] GENERAL REFERENCES Air pollution and open burning -- See Ch. 45. Solid waste — See Ch. 142. Water and sewers —See Ch. 161. Zoning -- See Ch. 165. § 122-1. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: NUISANCE -- That which annoys, vexes or creates a health hazard or that which, by its use or existence, works annoyance, injury or damage to others. OFFENSIVE MATTER -- Feathers, offal, dead animals or portions thereof, meat wastes, blood, tankage or any putrescible, organic matter; provided, however, that the term "offensive matter" shall not be construed to apply to livestock manure and poultry manure. § 122-2. Accumulations of noxious or offensive matter. It shall be unlawful for any person to pernut, deposit, store or hold any noxious or offensive, either to health or to comfort, matter on any premises or place or in any building or structure, unless such matter is so treated, screened, covered or placed so as not to create a nuisance. § 122-3. Containers for noxious or offensive matter. A -- All containers for the storage of noxious or offensive matter, as defined in § 122-1, shall completely confine the matter, shall be rodentproofed and inseetproofed and shall be kept in an inoffensive and sanitary condition. rn § 122-4. Collections of stagnant water unlawful; exceptions. It shall be unlawful for any person to cause water to collect and become stagnant and thereby to become a nuisance or a health hazard. Any foundation or other excavation that allows the collection of such water shall be pumped dry or drained within 10 days after receiving notice to do so from the Health Officer. This section shall be not construed to apply to farm ponds that are constructed for the benefit of fish or livestock. § 122-5. Cutting of grass, weeds, and foreign growth required; notice. (Amended 3-10-19991 It shall be unlawful for the owners of developed or undeveloped property located in a platted residential subdivision, within a residentially zoned district (RP Residential Performance, R4 Residential Planned Community, R5 Residential Recreational Community, and MH1 Mobile Home Community) to permit grass, weeds and other foreign growth standing more than 18 inches hi height to remain on property which lies within 100 feet of any dwelling or building. Any person who fails, refuses or neglects to cut or remove such grass, weeds and other foreign growth to a height not to exceed three inches, within 10 days after receiving written notice to do so from the Zoning Administrator or other properly designated official, shall be guilty of a violation. § 122-5.1. Work done by county; costs to become lien. (Added 3-10-19991 In the event of a violation of § 122-5, the Zoning Administrator or other properly designated official may have such grass, weeds or other foreign growth cut by its own agents or employees, in which event the reasonable cost thereof shall be chargeable to and paid by the owners of such property and may be collected by the county as taxes and levies are collected. Every charge authorized by this section with which the owners of any such property shall have been assessed and remains unpaid shall constitute a lien against such property. § 122-6. Dangerous weeds and undergrowth; administration. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any lot in any platted subdivision to allow weeds and undergrowth on such lot so as to endanger the public health and welfare of the community. The Health Officer or Officers of the county shall be responsible for the administration of this section, including the swearing out of criminal warrants for the violation thereof. § 122-7. Causing public nuisances unlawful. • • It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or maintain a public nuisance not otherwise provided for in this Code or the other ordinances of the county. § 122-8. Failure to comply. [Amended 12-9-19921 If any person responsible for the existence and continuance of a nuisance or health hazard, after being duly notified in writing by the Health Officer to abate such nuisance or health hazard, shall fail to abate the same for 24 hours after the time allowed for such abatement, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. § 122-9. Enforcement. [Amended 3-10-19991 Both the Sheriff and the Health Officer shall, in addition to their other duties, be specifically charged with the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter, with the exception of § 122-5, which shall be the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator. f! § 122-10. Violations and penalties. [Amended 12-9-19921 Any person found guilty of the violation of any of the sections of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be punishable by a maximum fine of $2,500 or by imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or by both such fine and imprisomnent; and failure to abide by the order of the County Court to remove or abate a nuisance or health hazard shall be deemed a separate offense for each day thereafter that the nuisance or health hazard is permitted to exist. • 0 Todd E. Taylor 117 Steeplechase Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, 41h Floor Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Davenport: I am writing this letter to voice mY opp s ion for Variance 0803, Hazel Lambert. It is my understanding that the proposed variance is for the elimination of the required 50-foot zoning district buffer along the entire western property line. The subject property is zoned B-2 and is identified as parcel identification numbers (PIN) 65A-7-8 and 65A-7-9 (located at the intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road). My wife and I have recently purchased a house in the Saratoga Meadows subdivision. We purchased this property to enlothe quiet country setting it presented. I understand that the subject property is zoned B-2 and is permitted to support a business use. My concern pertains to the elimination of the 50-foot zoning district buffer. As a planner for the Loudoun County Zoning Administration, I understand the importance of the buffer. I do feel that in some situations it is certainly appropriate to modify the County's zoning requirements. However, I do not feel that this is one of those situations. The B-2 zoning district allows some uses that are questionable in regards to being appropriate neighbors to residential properties. I do not believe that there is an adequate justification for the elimination of this buffer, nor do I believe that granting such a variance will relieve a hardship for the property owner. There are plenty of permitted uses in the B-2 district that will fit on the property and be able to provide the required buffering. I have no problem with a business use on the subject property. I just hope that the County will take into consideration whatuse is appropriate for the property. My neighbors have informed me that a car wash is the proposed use. To me, when you have a use that is not exactly compatible with it's adjacent properties, making the use even more incompatible by eliminating a necessary buffer is not an option. Thank you for your time and consideration. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the public meeting in August. Please make this letter available to the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Sincerely, Todd E. Taylor • 0 Mr Patrick Davenport Frederick County Zoning and Planning Administration 107 N Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr Davenport, We are homeowners in Saratoga Meadows, a community of 42 homes in the $200 to $300 thousand range located off Senseny Road just west of Greenwood Road.. A parcel of l;and between our development and Greenwood Road was rezoned on July 10, 2002 from Residential to Business. In discussions involving several of our residents with members of the Zoning Board before the actual rezoning was approved we agreed that the property probably should be zoned for business because it is located at a busy intersection. However, we were understandably concerned about what type of business might locate there since the property abuts the back yards of several houses in our community. We specifically requested that gasoline stations, drinking places and car washes be prohibited. It was our understanding that this was agreed to. However, we recently acquired a copy of a memo detailing an agreement between the Board and the owner of the property that described the requirement s for easements, lighting, buffering, etc. and a list of 10 prohibited uses for the property. Service stations and drinking places were included but not car washes. Since a car wash would be much more objectionable than many of the other uses on the list we could not understand why it was not included. On July 1, 2003 we found out why. We learned that a hearing was to be held on July 15 by the Zoning Board of Appeals to eliminate the required 50 foot buffer between our homes and the rezoned site to allow space for construction of a car wash that would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! When over 30 of our residents attended the hearing to object to this car wash proposal we learned that the project had already been completely engineered for the purchaser of the property. It is evident that a car wash had been agreed to much earlier by the Board. A Greenway Engineering representative asked the Board for a one month delay so they could convince we homeowners that a car wash would be "neighborhood friendly". The delay was granted and we homeowners were not allowed to speak. We realize what a 24/7 fully automatic car wash sounds like, having used the new unit up near Berkeley Springs. When the blowers operate it roars like a jet plane! And the industrial vacuum cleaners on the site are also very noisy„This facility is located right on busy Route 522, over a mile out of town in a commercial zone and with no immediate neighbors. There are no residences within half a mile. That is the kind of place a car wash belongs, not beside a residential development!. We were shocked to observe the unethical way this rezoning has been handled.-- keeping the car wash approval a secret until it was too late for us to object to it. Had it not been for the hearing to eliminate the buffer we would not have known about it until it was completed! A car wash would, without question, affect the resale value of the properties in Saratoga Meadows. The noise from the car wash itself, the radios of the customers as they clean their cars and the slamming of car doors would be intolerable, especially at night and on busy weekends. The engineers have offered to build a wall between our properties but we are certain that this would be of little value in blocking the noise and air pollution from a car wash. A commercial zone location is the only reasonable place to put it. We have an active homeowners association and we're proud of our homes and our quiet, well maintained community. A car wash would change the entire character of the area. This project must be stopped and car washes added to the list of prohibited uses for thsi property. Sincerely, Clifford and Charlotte Weller 105 Steeplechase Lane 0 . Page 2 of 3 PROPERTY LINE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE BUILDING A CAR WASH THAT WOULD BE OPEN 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK. More than 30 of our homeowners attended that July 15 meeting to voice opposition to the proposed waiver of the 50-foot buffer and to construction of the proposed car wash. The hearing was postponed until Aug. 19, however, at the request of Greenway Engineering which was acting on behalf of Ms. Lambert, owner of the property. She has retained Greenway for the project. A Greenway representative told the Zoning Board that they want to work with the homeowners to gain their acceptance of the construction of the proposed car wash. After visiting the Peterson car washes on N. Loudon St. and Valley Avenue in Winchester and a new, automatic "touchless" car wash in Berkeley Springs, W.Va., we remain convinced there is no conceivable way a car wash can be made an acceptable neighbor in our residential neighborhood. Summarizing some of our concerns: Noise. Noise from car washes is extremely high, especially from the new, automatic "touchless" installations. The high pressure hoses and high velocity blowers used in these "touchless" car washes literally roar. They sound like jet engines. The industrial vacuum cleaners provided for customers to clean their cars' interiors also are very noisy. And how do you control noise fi-orn car- radios turned up full blast? No space buffer or even a wall will materially prevent the noise from traveling in all directions. Security. Since the facility is likely to require few if any employees on site around the clock, there is a high likelihood that it will attract loiterers or noisy groups of young people, increasing the possibility of vandalism and invasion of privacy of the adjoining homes. To counter this, would the public then be expected to foot the bill for additional law enforcement presence? . Trash. When people clean out their cars trash often finds its way to a resting place on the ground where it is fair game for the wind which likely would scatter this trash into our neighborhood. There also would be air pollution from the cars' exhausts. . Traffic. Traffic congestion already is a problem at times at this intersection. This development would make it more acute. . Proper Values. Our property values likely would be negatively affected. Reduction of property values could result in a reduced level of tax revenue from our development of $200,000 - $300,000 homes. . Water pressure. Water pressure in our area already is low. The large water demands of a car wash would exacerbate the problem. Proceeding with the proposed car wash would permanently alter the character of the Saratoga Meadows development. We cannot imagine a worse neighbor than a car wash, unless it might be a foundry. We find it incomprehensible that anyone could suggest that a 24/7 car wash would be "neighborhood friendly." We can visualize any one of several other businesses that would be suitable neighbors. Welcome 7/23/2003 0 • Please read tffis letter 1 25 copies were sent to the members of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board and the County Administrator to try to prevent an automatic car wash from being built beside our development. The letter describes what is going on. Please write to: Patrick T. Davenport, County Planning and Zoning Administrator at 107 N Kent Street, Winchester, 22601 to express your objections. The more letters the better! This is your community. Please help us protect it. If you have influence with these politicians, USE IT! Saratoga Meadows is a development consisting of 42 homes, constructed during the period 1995 to 2000. We have an active Homeowner's Association and are very dedicated to maintaining the appearance, tranquility and security of our little community The purpose of this letter is to express the concerns of our residents over the seemingly inexorable progress of events that threaten to be extremely detrimental to our property. On July 10, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning of a building lot at the southwest corner of the intersection of Senseny and Greenwood Roads from RP (Residential Preference) to B2 (Business General). Since this property abuts the back yards of several of the homes in Sarasota Meadows, the affected homeowners were invited to attend the rezoning meeting. We conceded that since the property is located at a busy intersection, it is unsuited for residential purposes. The rezoning applicant did not specify an intended use but we felt that consideration should be given to the potential impact of the ultimate use on our adjacent residential area. Therefore, we requested that the use of the site be restricted by prohibiting car washes, gasoline filling stations or bars.. This seemed to us to be a reasonable request. We believed this was agreed to by the Board members.. We were advised that under regulation 165-37D, where property zoned B2 is proposed for development and it adjoins existing properties zoned RP, a category `B" buffer is required where the properties join. The buffer proposed by the applicant was a fifty (50) foot distance buffer and an eight (8) foot decorative wall . We recently secured a copy of a three page June 7, 2002 preliminary agreement between the Zoning Board and the owner of the subject property. This document defines the required easements, access restrictions, lighting, buffering, screening and A LIST OF 10 PROHIBITED USES. These included such items as retail nurseries, auto dealers, gasoline service stations and drinking places. Thus, it appears that we were actually requesting only one additional prohibited use beyond those already agreed to— namely, car washes. Since a car wash would be a much more objectionable neighbor to a residential area than many of the other items on the prohibited list, we were baffled by the Board's failure to include it The only possible conclusion we could draw is that the car wash project was already under way and an agreement had been made between the property owner and the Board to allow it to be built.. Not unexpectedly then, on July 1, 2003, our worst fears were realized. We were notified that there would be a public hearing held by the County Zoning Board of Appeals on July 15`" to deal with Variance #08-03 to ELIMINATE THE FIFTY (50) FOOT ZONING DISTRICT BUFFER ALONG THE ENTIRE WEST PROPERTY LINE IN ORDER TO BUILD A CAR ASH THAT WOULD OPERATE 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK! The concerns of the residential community are being completely ignored. It is evident that our suspicions were correct that a car wash was planned for the site a year ago when the property was rezoned and this fact was withheld from us. We now realize why the Board failed to honor our request to have car washes included on the list of prohibited uses.. In the ensuing year the project has been engineered and if the new owner had not petitioned to delete the 50 foot buffer we would not have known a car wash was to be built until it was in place! Over 30 or our homeowners attended the July 15`h hearing to voice our objections to this turn of events. But a representative of Greenway Engineering requested a one month delay so they could work with we homeowners to convince us that a car wash would be "neighborhood friendly". The delay was immediately granted. We were not allowed to speak since the meeting had been postponed. There is no conceivable way that a car wash can be made an acceptable neighbor in a residential neighborhood. Since the proposed new facility is defined as a 24/7 operation, we believe it will be similar to the new totally automatic installation in Berkeley Springs To wash a car the customer puts $5 in a slot and drives into the wash building. This "brushless" car wash utilizes dozens of ultra high velocity water jets mounted on moving arms that "blast" the dirt off the car as they swing around it.. This very noisy, intense spray of water continues for a period of two or three minutes. Then the car is moved forward and a battery of extremely high velocity blowers remove the water from the car. During the minute or more that these blowers operate it sounds like a jet aircraft! You are urged to drive up Route 522 to the car wash on the east side of the highway about a mile from Berkeley Springs.. (Call me and I'll arrange transportation for you if desired). You will note that it is located on a busy U S highway, over a mile outside the village in a 100% commercial zone and it has no immediate neighbors. When you hear it operate you will understand why it is located where it is and why it should not be sited anywhere near a residential area.. Therefore, these are some of our concerns -Our major concern involves the intolerably high noise level from car washes, especially from the new automatic units. (And these can be used any hour of the day or night). The industrial vacuum cleaners used by customers to clean the interiors of their cars are also very noisy. No buffer or wall will keep this noise from our residential area.. -During evenings and weekends when the car washes are busiest, additional noise will result from people vacuuming their cars with radios turned up full blast and slamming of car doors. . -We have security concerns for the nearby residents. Since the facility will not have employees on site it may attract loiterers or groups of young people with nothing better to do, resulting in possible vandalism, noise and/or invasion of privacy of the adjoining homes. Surely additional law enforcement presence will be required. -When people clean out their cars trash is often dumped on the ground rather than put in the receptacles provided.. The wind can scatter this trash into our neighborhood. -Water pressure in our area is already low. We fear that the large water demands of a car wash will exacerbate the problem. -Traffic congestion may develop on occasion, especially with the increase in traffic volume from the major development occurring off Senseny and Greenwood Roads.. -Without question our property values will be severely negatively affected. The reduction of property values could even result in a reduced level of tax revenue from our development. We strongly resent the underhanded manner in which this rezoning has been conducted. Keeping secret from we homeowners the fact that a car wash was planned until it is virtually too late for us to do anything about it is a travesty and patently unfair. While we recognize the right of the property owner to sell to whomever she chooses, putting a car wash beside our residential neighborhood severely impinges on the rights of the homeowners in Saratoga Meadows (who were here first) to reasonable peace and, quiet, freedom from air and noise pollution and preservation of our property values_ Senseny Road is almost entirely residential, The only two businesses on the south side of the road between I-81 and the county line are the old grocery store and the branch bank opposite Senseny Road Elementary School. Neither of these operate around the clock nor do they create any noise. But there are many types of businesses that would be suitable neighbors to our residential area These would include a bank, retail shops, real estate, insurance or other offices, medical facilities, etc. We would have no objection to having any of these as neighbors but cannot imagine a worse neighbor than a car wash. We therefore appeal to those county officials who must make the final determination in this case to recognize that homeowners as well as commercial interests do have rights. We ask that you imagine yourselves in the position of these homeowners. After investing $200 to $300 thousand in your new home, suddenly you are faced with the prospect of having a car wash virtually in your back yard. How would you react? Proceeding with this proposed car wash would permanently alter the character of the Saratoga Meadows development. For many of us, most of our life savings are invested in our homes. To see their value jeopardized in order for one individual to make a profit seems patently unfair. I find it incomprehensible that anyone could suggest that a 24/7 car wash would be "neighborhood friendly". How can we can have this original determination reconsidered and have car washes added to the list of prohibited uses for the property as we originally requested? This catastrophe must not be allowed to happen. Respectfully yours, John Harler, President Saratoga Meadows Homeowners Association. 117 Atoka Drive Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 722-0701 Aug. 15, 2003 Mr. Patrick T. Davenport Frederick County Zoning and Planning Administrator 107 N Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Davenport, We certainly do not profess any particular knowledge or skills in the planning/zoning field since our first and only exposure has been the recent episode involving the rezoning of the property beside our development and the threatened construction of a 2417 automatic car wash on the site. Our residents breathed a collective sigh of relief when we Iearned that the prospective purchaser decided to look for another location. His decision was probably not made because of our letters to County officials, phone calls, newspaper articles or signed petitions, nor by any actions taken by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. Under the existing Zoning regulations you are powerless to prevent any business fiom being sited beside residences so long as it is listed under the B1 or B2 classification. For this reason, we still feel highly vulnerable. Another client could opt to build a car wash, filling station, 24 hour fast food restaurant or other totally unsuitable business on the site and neither we nor you could prevent it. With regard to our particular case, the Planning Staff obviously had concerns about impacts on our adjoining properties of a possible objectionable business on the site. (And they were not aware that a car wash was really planned). Their recommendations that accompanied the application for rezoning that went to the Board of Supervisors included the following: 3b) "There are no specific guidelines regarding community specific land use in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan regarding the Greenwood Road/Senseny Road intersection. Therefore, potential impacts of the rezoning should be considered carefully. Specifically, the impacts that would be directed to the neighboring residential uses should be effectively mitigated". 5b) "Staff believes the list of prohibited uses that are proffered could be lengthened to include other inappropriate uses". Staff Conclusions: "This rezoning application could be substantially improved to more effectively mitigate the negative impacts that would be incurred from the rezoning of subject property". Because of our continuing concerns and the probability that similar situations are going to occur elsewhere in the County, we would like to offer a few suggestions for your consideration: 1. Code V67, Part II, Chapter 165, Article 12 states "A report analyzing the impacts of any rezoning shall be required to be submitted by the applicant for any application for rezoning. This requirement may be exempted if the application involves less than 20 acres only if no significant impacts are anticipated". Item A states: "The Director of Planning and Development shall determine which issues need to be addressed" Item C states: "The impact analysis shall include the following: 1. The use of surrounding land and potential economic, -physical visual nuisance and other impacts thereon and 2. The anticipated increase in traffic to be generated as a result of the rezoning". How can an impact analysis possibly address these issues in a meaningful way without knowing the use? Surely the impact of a medical office or barber shop would be quite different from that of a car wash, 24 hour filling station or fast food restaurant. 2. We recognize that the recent sudden increase in growth in Frecerick County has imposed some heavy and pressing burdens on the PIanners and Board to deal with the many and varied issues and problems involved in zoning and land use. Surely overall plans need to be developed as opposed to spot zoning, especially of small plots in residential neighborhoods. Preferably, groups of appropriate small businesses should be located in or near residential areas with consideration given to noise, noxious odors or other nuisances from impacting them negatively.. 3. Category B1 Concerns A. Delete car washes from this classification. Automatic car washes definitely do not belong in or near residences due to the extreme noise. Even customer operated wand type car washes present a problem because of the noise of the associated industrial vacuum cleaners. (The latter might be acceptable with suitable buffering and screening, but should not be permitted to operate 24/7). B. Restaurants need to be defined. A restaurant that is mainly a drinking establishment should require a conditional use permit or perhaps even a buffer if it is near a residential area. Fast food restaurants that operate 18 - 24 hours a day have a different impact on its neighbors than a family oriented sit down restaurant. The ultimate use should be determined before approving the construction. 4. Category B2 Concerns A. Either delete automatic car washes or require at least a 200 foot separation from residential property because of the noise factor. This is a serious concern. B. Treat automobile dealers and gasoline service stations as separate uses. The former would not be particularly objectionable beside a residential area with proper screening but a service station (especially a 24/7 operation) would be highly objectionable. Factors include noise, fumes, fire or explosion hazard, threat of underground tank leakage into homeowner's basements, etc. Reasonable separation from residential property should be required. C. Fire stations, companies and rescue squads should require a sizeable distance buffer if put in a residential area and, hopefully, it would be part of a group of businesses rather than a sole business unit in the midst of residences. Trucks leaving the station at all hours of the night, while providing an essential service, would constitute an unfavorable impact on the neighbors. D. The same conditions as above should apply to commercial sport and recreation clubs, outdoor commercial batting cages, amusement and recreation services operated indoors, motion picture theaters, hotels and motels, organization hotels and lodging, etc. • With nearly 70 business on the approved list for Bl and B2 zones, it is difficult, if not impossible to frame regulations that will cover every possible set of circumstances. While we recognize that a property owner must know what is or is not allowable with regard to the ultimate use of his property, the County must somehow retain the right to permit common sense to be exercised in the decision making process. With respect to rezoning of land for business use beside residential property, Code 165-37D states that "Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed when it adjoins land in certain different zoning districts". Thus, there is some ability for the County to mitigate the negative impacts that could result from the rezoning. Depending on the proposed use, the option could be extended to include any rezoning within 100 or 200 feet of residences or impose restrictions on hours of operation. The existing proffer system gives virtually unlimited rights to the commercial interests, and very limited rights to the County and absolutely none to residential property owners. For the overall best result, inputs from all of the parties must be considered. Respectfully submitted, John Harler, President Saratoga Meadows Homeowners Association 117 Atoka Drive Phone - 722-0701 M RE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 .December 8, 2003 Mr. Tung Niki Adhikusuma, P.E., Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Review Comments for Site Plan #48-03, Senseny Greenwood Carwash Property Identification Numbers (PINs) 65A-7-8 and 65A-7-9 Magisterial District: Shawnee; Zoning District: B2 (Business General) Submitted: November 20, 2003 Dear Niki: .Planning Staff has reviewed the above -referenced site plan to determine if administrative approval can be granted. At this time, administrative approval cannot be granted until the following issues are appropriately addressed, as well as all issues of the other review agencies. Please review Staff s comments listed below and then prepare a revised site plan which adequately addresses each concern. Review Comments: 1) Zoning Buffer. a) Landscaping Screen. There is an insufficient number of trees proposed within the category B buffer. This buffer is required along the west and south property lines because the adjoining properties are zoned RP (Residential Performance) District while the subject property is zoned B2 (Business General) District. Staff calculates that a total of 81 trees are required for the 401.64 total feet of these two property lines. Only 17 trees are shown on the plan. Of the required landscaping, at least three species of trees shall be provided, a minimum of one third deciduous and the majority being evergreen. Evergreen trees shall be planted at least four feet in height. Deciduous trees must be planted with a minimum caliper of two inches, based on the measuring standards of the American Association of Nurserymen. Please provide the required landscaping for the entire zoning buffer. b) Opaque Screen. Please increase the height of the proposed board -on -board opaque fence to eight feet, versus the proposed six feet. This additional height will more effectively screen the proposed use from the existing residential uses on the adjoining properties. Please note that during the rezoning of the subject property, the applicant envisioned an eight foot h 'c h opaque screen at this location. 107 North bent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Review Comments for Site Plan #48-03 Mr. Tung Niki Adhikusuma, P.E. December 8, 2003 2) Evergreen Hedge Row. Please provide a three foot tall evergreen hedge row from the front curb -cut to the proposed vacuums. This hedge row is required to screen headlights. Spacing between shrubs shall be between two to three feet apart in order to provide a continuous screen. 3) Perimeter and Interior Landscaping. Please provide calculations and additional trees for the required perimeter and interior landscaping. The Zoning Ordinance requires one deciduous tree (two inch caliper minimum at planting) per 2,000 square feet of impervious area for perimeter landscaping. One deciduous tree is also required for every ten parking spaces for interior landscaping. Based on the impervious area calculations, and the number of parking spaces provided with this preliminary site plan, nine deciduous trees are required for perimeter and interior landscaping. This number may change if the amount of impervious area or number of parking spaces is increased. 4) Vacuums. The location of the proposed vacuum structures does not meet the minimum setback requirement of 35 feet from the front property line along Greenwood Road. Please remove or relocate these structures. 5) Parking Lot Design Standards. The proposed parking space does not meet the parking requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The space does not have the required nine foot landscaped island at both ends, nor does the parking space have the required aisle width. Please change as necessary. 6) Number- of Parking Spaces. One parking space is not adequate parking for the proposed use. Please provide three parking spaces per bay plus required spaces for office areas. 7) Proffers. Please list all proffered conditions of the site plan for informational purposes to the future business and others. A copy of the proffer statement is attached for your information. 8) Turn Radius. The left turn of the proposed drive-thru lanes appears to be very sharp. Please provide staff with the turning radius of this turn and any supportive engineering information which would indicate that the turn is appropriate. Whether or not the turn is appropriate should be based on reasons of safety and function. 9) Stacking Distance. Please illustrate the required 90 feet of stacking distance on the site plan for both drive-thru lanes. 10) Raised Landscaped Island. Please provide a raised landscaped island instead of the striped asphalt for the area to the right of the entrance to the drive-tlu-u lanes. • 9 Page 3 Review Comments for Site Plan #48-03 Mr. Tung Niki Adhilcusuma, P.E. December 8, 2003 11) Water Recovery System. Will the proposed water recovery system be underground? If so, please provide a statement to this effect on the site plan. If not, the water recovery system appears to be in an inappropriate location and should be relocated. 12) Sign Setbacks. The locations of the proposed signs are not appropriate. The southern sign is scaled at a distance less than three feet from the curb. The northern sign, facing Senseny Road, is also less than three feet from the curb, as well as less than ten feet from the proposed property line. Please make all necessary changes to comply with these standards. Please also show the location of all other proposed signs, including entrance and directional signs. 13) Lighting Plan. Please provide a separate lighting plan as part of the site plan. The lighting plan should show the details of all proposed lighting, the location of all proposed lighting, and the illumination radius of all proposed lighting. The lightingplan should also show how light pollution will be prevented. A lighting plan was proffered with the rezoning of this property (REZ #03-02). 14) Proposed Electric, Telephone, and Water Connections. Please show the location of the proposed electric, telephone, water lines, and any other utility lines, and demonstrate how they will connect to the proposed carwash facility. Please also provide a statement that all proposed utility lines shall be placed underground. 15) Height ot'Structures. Please provide the specific height of all structures. Staffhas doubts that the structure will be 35 feet as shown on the cover page of the site plan as the proposed height. 16) Property Owner. Staff's records indicate that the property owner is still Hazel Lambert. Please provide documentation verifying that Tom Hall is now the property owner of both lots. 17) Existing Entrance. Please provide grass cover over all areas of the existing driveway. A statement to this effect needs to be provided on the site plan for clarification purposes. 18) Recorded Plat. Please provide staff with a copy of a recorded and approved plat of the property showing the proffered ten foot wide bicycle lane easement, lot consolidation, and the areas dedicated to VDOT. 19) Hours of Operation. Please provide a narrative regarding the intended hours of operation for the facility. Please also provide a statement limiting construction activities to only appropriate hours of the day. 20) Curb & Gutter Design. Please ensure that CG-6 is provided for all parking areas. L 11 Page 4 Review Comments for Site Plan #48-03 Mr. Tung Nilci Adhilcusuma, P.E. December 8, 2003 After you have revised the site plan, please resubmit one copy so that I may verify the information contained on the plan. I will need all approved review agency comment sheets and at least five copies of the final plan for final administrative approval. Comment sheets are required from the following agencies: the Frederick CountylnspectionsDepartment, the Frederick CountyDepartment of Public ff,bi-lcs (Count); Engineer), the Frederick Countny Department of Parks & Recreation, the Frederick County Fire Marshal, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the Frederick County ServiceAuthority, the Frederick Count},Airport Authority, the Frederick County DeparUnentofGIS, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Sincerely, Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II JFC/bad Attachment: rezoning proffers bc:,-----Ina Forrester, Red Bud District Supervisor Lynda Tyler, Stonewall District Supervisor /tO-�--Harrington Smith, Jr., Shawnee District Supervisor Greenway Engineering February 25, 2002 iazel C. Lambert Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised June 7, 2002 HAZEL C. LAMBERT REZONING Tax Parcels 65A-((7))-8 and 65A-((7))-9 Shawnee Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #03-02 for the rezoning of .73 acres from the Residential Performance (RP) zoning district to the Business General (132) Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such ternls and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Hazel C. Lambert being all of Tax Map Parcels 65A-((7))-8 and 65A-((7))-9 and further described by boundary survey prepared by Greenway Engineering dated February 19, 2002 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 10,000 square feet for the entire .73 acres. B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed rezoning: Description Sic Communication facilities and offices 48 Electric, gas and other utility facilities and offices 49 Retail nurseries and lawn and garden supply stores 526 Automotive Dealer and gasoline service stations 55 Drinking Places 5813 Fuel dealers 598 File r'3137RADS/dls Im.. Greenway Engineering February 25, 2002 .,azel C. Lambert Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised June 7, 2002 Golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses 7999 Commercial batting cages operated outdoors ----- Model home sales offices ----- Adult Retail ----- C.) Transportation 1.) The applicant hereby proffers to restrict the access to the property to one entrance at a location on Greenwood Road adjacent to the most southern property line of the subject property. 2.) The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate right-of—way along Greenwood Road (Route 656) for future road improvements by Virginia Department of Transportation in accordance with the attached Exhibit C, attached to and made part of these proffers. 3.) The applicant hereby proffers to provide a ten -foot (10) non-exclusive easement along the Senseny Road (Route 657) property frontage for the purpose of allowing the development of a bicycle facility as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan's Bicycle Plan. This easement will be dedicated to the appropriate entity prior to the construction of the bicycle facility. D.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachment for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. E.) Buffering and Screening In the event approval is obtained by the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance of the zoning distance buffer, Chapter 165-37, the applicant hereby proffers an 8-foot high masonry wall to be constructed along the western property line adjacent to Tax Map Parcels 65G-((1))-36 and 65G-((1))-37 and as illustrated in Exhibit B, attached to and made part of these proffers. F.) Structural Requirements In the event that a two-story structure is developed on this property, the applicant hereby proffers that no windows, sliding glass doors or decks will be constructed on the second floor level along the western property line to provide for the privacy of the residents of the Saratoga Meadows Subdivision. File 1#3137RADS/dls 2 Greenway Engineering • February 25, 2002 i iazel C. Lambert Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised June 7, 2002 G.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: ca J OZ Hazel C. Lambert Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Ci County f i- r,,c4P v-i r—L To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 17 day of J u s-i 2, 200Z by HG �2,c l Q. La vvt -6--�-i o _ Notary PuJrlrc My Commission Expires Zq 2,66 — File #3137NDS/dls SE�SENY IRF s VgRI �'4D R!E 40 F 4.2' QS �40 00, IRS � ?4.2' O 1 N TM 65G-((1))-37 TRAVIS J. TISINGER DB 946 PG 213 W OIN � n Q' N 0 �u 2 I� N�^�Iu SQ I Q Q TM 65G-((1))-36 N m ROBERT A. STIFF & Z o BRENDA S. STIFF I DB 934 PG 976 21.7' CONC! 54.90' [ 1RS 85.0 1' ON. N 88' 14'50. W 141. 73' TM 55A- ((7))- 7 KATHY S. KERNS DB 568 PG 549 PROP. AREA TO BE DEDICATED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY Q) 2 O L'j O� QD ^ Q O W 00 � mi �o U EXHIBIT C PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION DATE: MARCH 2O02 HAZEL LAMBERT ,TH OF yr RED HUD MAGISTERIAL DL3 MCf SCALE: 1 "= 5 0 0 - VMQRU r� GREENWAY ENGINEERING U MARK D. SMITH 9 b N0.022837 151 WINDY HILL LANE Ao Engineers WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 Surveyors 'TELEPHONE: (540) 662-4185 s`sIONAL FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com Ld FIL UY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 December 8, 2003 Mr. Tung Niki Adhikusuma, P.E., Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Review Comments for Site Plan #48-03, Senseny Greenwood Carwash Property Identification Numbers (PINs) 65A-7-8 and 65A-7-9 Magisterial District: Shawnee; Zoning District: B2 (Business General) Submitted: November 20, 2003 Dear Niki: .Planning Staff has reviewed the above -referenced site plan to determine if administrative approval can be granted. At this time, administrative approval cannot be granted until the following issues are appropriately addressed, as well as all issues of the other review agencies. Please review Staff s comments listed below and then prepare a revised site plan which adequately addresses each concern. Review Comments: 1) Zoning Buffer. a) Landscaping Screen. There is an insufficient number of trees proposed within the category B buffer. This buffer is required along the west and south property lines because the adjoining properties are zoned RP (Residential Performance) District while the subject property is zoned B2 (Business General) District. Staff calculates that a total of 81 trees are required for the 401.64 total feet of these two property lines. Only 17 trees are shown on the plan. Of the required landscaping, at least three species of trees shall be provided, a minimum of one third deciduous and the majority being evergreen. Evergreen trees shall be planted at least four feet in height. Deciduous trees must be planted with a minimum caliper of two inches, based on the measuring standards of the American Association of Nurserymen. Please provide the required landscaping for the entire zoning buffer. b) Opaque Screen. Please increase the height of the proposed board -on -board opaque fence to eight feet, versus the proposed six feet. This additional height will more effectively screen the proposed use from the existing residential uses on the adjoining properties. Please note that during the rezoning of the subject property, the applicant envisioned an eight foot hrygh opaque screen at this location. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Review Comments for Site Plan 114S-03 Mr. Tung Niki Adhilcusunla, P.E. December S, 2003 2) Evergreen Hedge Row. Please provide a three foot tall evergreen hedge row from the front curb -cut to the proposed vacuums. This hedge row is required to screen headlights. Spacing between shrubs shall be between two to three feet apart in order to provide a continuous screen. 3) Perimeter and Interior Landscaping. Please provide calculations and additional trees for the required perimeter and intcrior landscaping. The Zoning Ordinance requires one deciduous tree (two inch caliper rillllinlUr1 at planting) per 2,000 square feet of impervious area for perimeter landscaping. One deciduous tree is also required for every ten parking spaces for interior landscaping. Based on the impervious area calculations, and the number of parking spaces provided with this preliminary site plan, nine deciduous trees are required for perimeter and interior landscaping. This number may change if the amount of impervious area or number of parking spaces is increased. 4) Vacuums. The location of the proposed vacuum structures does not meet the minimum setback requirement ol'35 feet G'onl the front property line along Greenwood Road. Please remove or relocate these structures. 5) Parking Lot Design Standards. The proposed parking space does not meet the parking requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The space does not have the required nine foot landscaped island at both ends, nor does the parking space have the required aisle width. Please change as necessary. o) Number of Parking Spaces. Onc parking space is not adequate parking for the proposed use. Please provide three parking spaces per bay plus required spaces for office areas. 7) Proffers. Please list all proffered conditions of the site plan for informational purposes to the future business and others. A copy of the proffer statement is attached for your information. 8) Turn Radius. The left turn Of the proposed drive-thru lanes appears to be very sharp. Please provide staff with the turning radius of this turn and any supportive engineering information which would indicate that the turn is appropriate. Whether or not the turn is appropriate should be based on reasons Of safety and function. 9) Stacking Distance. Please illustrate the required 90 feet of stacking distance on the site plan for both drive-thi'tl Ia11CS. 10) Raised Landscaped Island. Plcasc provide a raised landscaped island instead of the striped asphalt for the area to the right of the entrance to the drive-thrtl lanes. 0 0 Page 3 Review Comments for Site Plan 1148-03 Mr. Tung Niki Adhikusuma, P.E. December 8, 2003 11) Water Recovery System. Will the proposed water recovery system be underground? If so, please provide a statement to this effect on the site plan. If not, the water recovery system appears to be in an inappropriate location and should be relocated. 12) Sign Setbacks. The locations of the proposed signs are not appropriate. The southern sign is scaled at a distance less than three feet Iron1 the curb. The norther] sign, facing Senseny Road, is also less than three feet from the curb, as well as less than ten feet from the proposed property line. Please make all necessary changes to comply with these standards. Please also show the location of all other proposed signs, including entrance and directional signs. 13) Lighting Plan. Please provide a separate lighting plan as part of the site plan. The lighting plan should show the details of all proposed lighting, the location of all proposed lighting, and the illumination radius of all proposed lighting. The lighting plan should also show how light pollution will be prevented. A lighting plan was proffered with the rezoning of this property (REZ 903-02). 14) Proposed Electric, Telephone, and Water Connections. Please show the location of the proposed electric, telephone, water lines, and any other utility lines, and demonstrate how they will connect to the proposed carwash facility. Please also provide a statement that all proposed utility lines shall be placed underground. 15) Height ot'Structures. Please provide the specific height of all structures. Staff has doubts that the structure Will be 35 feet as shown on the cover page of the site plan as the proposed height. 16) Property Owner. Staff's records indicate that the property owner is still Hazel Lambert. Please provide documentation verifying that Tom Hall is now the property owner of both lots. 17) Existing Entrance. Please provide grass cover over all areas of the existing driveway. A statement to this effect needs to be provided on the site plan for clarification purposes. 18) Recorded Plat. Please provide staff with a copy of a recorded and approved plat of the property sliowing the proffered ten foot wide bicycle lane easement, lot consolidation, and the areas dedicated to VDOT. 19) Hours of Operation. ]'lease provide a narrative regarding the intended hours of operation for the facility. Please also provide a statement limiting construction activities to only appropriate hours of the clay. 20) Curb & Gutter Design. Please ensure that CG-6 is provided for all parking areas. 11 Page 4 Review Comments for Sitc Plan 1148-03 Mr. Tung Niki Adhikiisuma, P.E. December S, 2003 After you have revised the site plan, please resubmit one copy so that I may verify the information contained on the plan. I will need all approved review agency comment sheets and at least five copies of the final plan for final administrative approval. Comment sheets are required from the following agencies: the Frederick County Inspections Deperrtnterrt, theFrederick CountyDepartinent of Public Works (County Engineer), the Frederick Coma); Department of Parks & Recreation, the Frederick County Fire Marshal, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the Frederick County ServiceAuthority, the FrederickCottiio lliiportAttthoi-ity, the Frederick County Department ofGIS, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Sincerely, Jeremy F. Camp. Planner II JFC/bad Attachment: rezoning proffers bc:,,-Gina Forrester, Red Bud District Supervisor Lynda Tyler, Stonewall District Supervisor /k'.--Harrington Smith, Jr., Shawnee District Supervisor Greenway Engineering • February 25, 2002 • ;azel C. Lambert Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised June 7, 2002 HAZEL C. LAMBERT REZONING Tax Parcels 65A-((7))-8 and 65A-((7))-9 Shawnee Magisterial District Preliminary Matters O U Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #03-02 for the rezoning of .73 acres from the Residential Performance (RP) zoning district to the Business General (132) Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Hazel C. Lambert being all of Tax Map Parcels 65A-((7))-8 and 65A-((7))-9 and further described by boundary survey prepared by Greenway Engineering dated February 19, 2002 (Exhibit A). A.) Maximum Building Structure Square Feet The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total building structures to 10,000 square feet for the entire .73 acres. B.) Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted on the proposed rezoning: Description Sic Conurnunication facilities and offices 48 Electric, gas and other utility facilities and offices 49 Retail nurseries and lawn and garden supply stores 526 Automotive Dealer and gasoline service stations 55 Drinking Places 5813 Fuel dealers 598 File N3137/NfDS/dis Greenway Engineering • February 25, 2002 .,azel C. Lambert Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised June 7, 2002 Golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses 7999 Commercial batting cages operated outdoors ----- Model home sales offices ----- Adult Retail ----- C.) Transportation 1.) The applicant hereby proffers to restrict the access to the property to one entrance at a location on Greenwood Road adjacent to the most southern property line of the subject property. 2.) The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate right-of—way along Greenwood Road (Route 656) for future road improvements by Virginia Department of Transportation in accordance with the attached Exhibit C, attached to and made part of these proffers. 3.) The applicant hereby proffers to provide a ten -foot (10) non-exclusive easement along the Senseny Road (Route 657) property frontage for the purpose of allowing the development of a bicycle facility as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan's Bicycle Plan. This easement will be dedicated to the appropriate entity prior to the construction of the bicycle facility. D.) Lighting Building mounted lights and pole -mounted lights will be of a downcast nature and shielded and directed away from adjacent properties surrounding the proposed project. Lighting plans will be submitted as a separate attachunent for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department prior to installation. E.) Buffering and Screening In the event approval is obtained by the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance of the zoning distance buffer, Chapter 165-37, the applicant hereby proffers an 8-foot high masonry wall to be constructed along the western property line adjacent to Tax Map Parcels 65G-((1))-36 and 65G-((1))-37 and as illustrated in Exhibit B, attached to and made part of these proffers. F.) Structural Requirements In the event that a two-story structure is developed on this property, the applicant hereby proffers that no windows, sliding glass doors or decks will be constructed on the second floor level along the western property line to provide for the privacy of the residents of the Saratoga Meadows Subdivision. File 113137/NODS/dls 2 Greenway Engineering • February 25, 2002 • iazel C. Lambert Revised May 1, 2002 Rezoning Revised June 7, 2002 G.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: &,1 % OZ Hazel C. Lambert Date Conunonwealth of Virginia, Cit County f e -I GL To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 17 day of JutrlC, 2002, by Ha -),el C. n _ Notary Pt rc My Commission Expires (o vi.�cyu File 113137/NIDS/dls `SENSFNY lRF !/ R0 D �R'4B�F R/y, TE 6'S� g6., o m 4.2' 00, h W 4B �¢ / 24.2' o o, of TM 65G-((1))-37 >U m TRAVIS J. DB 946 TISINGER PG 213 W o o `� W �' QQa � Q TM 65G-((1))-36 N - ►►��,, ^? ROBERT A. STIFF & o BRENDA S. STIFF I DB 934 PG 976 CONS MON. 54.90' IRS N 88' 14 '50 " W 85.01 ' 141.73' TV 65A-((7))-7 KATHY S. KERNS DB 568 PG 549 WIN zo o� t" Q') �a to m r cc Cu OO 2 AREA TO BE DPROP. EDICATED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY (o W Qt 2 Oc W o 06 Q J W W z mz �o EXHIBIT C PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION DATE: MARCH 200E HAZEL LAMBERT RED HUD NAG=ERUL DISTRICT SCALE: 1 "=50' - FREDERICK C0Un'Y,--V-MQDU - ---- - ---- — GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 WINDY HILL LANE Engineers WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 Surveyors TELEPHONE: (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 F'Uu/lded i71 1971 www.greenwayeng.com r� MARK D. SMITH No.022837 ov ti Klsl&fONAL ■If • 0 SITE PLAN APPLICATION Incomplete Date; of return 1. Project Title: 2. Location of Property (street address) 3. Property Owner: Address: Telephone 4. Applicant/Agent Address Telephone 5. Designer: Address: Telephone: Contact: Sensenv Greenwood Carwash Intersection of Senseny and Greenwood Roads Tom Hall P.O. Box 309 Herndon, VA 20172 800-728-3312 Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 (540)662-4185 Greenway Engineering Same Same David Falkenstein/Niki Adhikusuma 31 6. Is this an original or revised site plan? Original ® Revised ❑ 7a. Total acreage of parcel to be developed: 0.729 7b. Total acreage of parcel: O1729 8. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number: 65A-((7))- 8 & 9 b) Current Zoning: B=2 c) Present Use: Vacant d) Proposed Use: 2-Bay Self-service automaticcarwash e) Adjoining Property Use(s) RP f) Adjoining Property Identification NUmber(s) 65A-((7))-7, 65G-((I))-36, 37 g) Magisterial District(s) Shawnee I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Planning Department. I also understand that all required material will be complete prior to the SUbmission of my site plan. Signature: Date: // e 7 - a-? 10/24/2003 15:47 5406656395 FRED CO PLANNING DEP PAGE 02/02 • • Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia )Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.fredebick.va.us Department of PlanWng & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men, By Those Present: That I (We) �/1� (Name) I M05 0CL11 (Phone) 800,- '1 26 331Z. (Address) PC) &X _301 ke i-nd6yl Va- 20 I -7Z the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by VA/0 115, Rage- 15(D3 Instrument No, on Page and is described as lax Map .4 CoGA-U-7)) -8 f-- (n5A 4_(-7))-Gl Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) text EVl ee i I yi,2 (Phone) 540 61 2 - 4-1 (Address) 151 l,(,lrOk/ 14id Loyie ((�l ✓1(',_(�eS-l�r� Va, ZZCoDZ To act as my true and lawful attorney-i:a-fact'for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits D Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final.) ❑ Subdivision XSite Plan My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the'day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified, In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set Signature(s) y (our) hand and seal this i-0"day of J\�)Vf'clYlbe_ , 200 3, Statc of Virginia, Cit Coup f ^ F rerlycc_�_-, , To -wit: Z, ly-wo- L . McAc5o , a Notary Public in and .for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this ]fit Iday of _LL.-4aL 200 3 . My Commission Expires: FP ( yc -L( 2-1, 2oo4— Notary Public UA Io pooinl Onliod POA.%Ta s eaw►vvt�5siovlPd- a No{an� cis `l�s��ci. 1_ Stephe,-is • • Request For Site Plan Comments Department of Planning and Development Mail to: Department of Planning and Development Attn: County Planner 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Hand deliver to: 107 North Kcnt Street Fourth Floor Winchester, VA (540) 665-5651 Please fill out the uiformation as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attacli two (2) copies of the site plan with this slieet. Applicant's Name: Grcenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, Virginia 22602 Phone Number: (540) 662-4185 Name of development and/or description of the request: Senseny Greenwood Carwash Location of property: Intersection of Senseny and Greenwood Roads Planning and Development's Comments: 16 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Fcar. kd 1rt ! 9, i T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: Senseny Greenwood Carwash File No.: 3137H Date: November 20, 2003 To: FC Planning From: Dave Falkenstein/dlm Attn: Jeremy Camp GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 Copied: Remarks: 17 Urgent C" For Your Review As You Requested r'" Please Comment Message: Jeremy, - Attached is the following for the above project for your revieLOV -2 copies of the siteplan -Site Plan Application 03 -Application fee check for $1,073 -FC Planning comment sheet ENT -Signed/notarized Special Limited Power of Attorney form When we have received all Agencies comment sheets, we will forward them to your office. Thank you for your assistance. Call with any concerns. Engineers Surveyors Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 greenway@visuaUink.com