CPPC 08-09-04 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
ent of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
i FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS)
FROM: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Directon*tx
Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner S K L
RE: August Meeting and Agenda
DATE: August 3, 2004
The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be
meeting on Monday, August 9th, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the
County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will
discuss the following agenda items:
AGENDA
1) Rural Areas Study. Continuation of policy formulation phase of the Rural Areas Study.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) Requests. Plan amendment requests
under review.
3) Other.
Please contact the department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Thank you.
Please note the earlier start time for this meeting.
Access to the County Administration Building for night meetings that do not occur in the
Board Room will be limited to the back door of the four-story wing. I would encourage
committee members to park in the county parking lot located behind the new addition or in
the Joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the sidewalks to the back door of the four-
story wing. The door will be locked; therefore, please wait for staff to open the door.
SKE/CMM/bad
Attachments
107 North Dent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ITEM #1
Rural Areas Study
Continuation of Policy Formulation Phase
Overview:
Using the input gathered in recent months from the public, stakeholders, and both the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors, the committee has begun formulating policies for the
rural areas. In this phase of the study, goals for the rural areas are being articulated and policies
are being drafted to facilitate attainment of these goals.
For several months the rural areas study working group has been meeting weekly to study in
depth the development trends, problems and issues associated with the rural areas. The working
group has developed a number of suggested policies for the rural areas which must now be
considered in depth by the full CPPS. The major issues and recommendations are included
below.
The Green Infrastructure Concept:
The Green Infrastructure concept is the framework around which the rural areas study will be
based. Green Infrastructure is defined as a contiguous network of protected open spaces and
natural resources. The Green Infrastructure concept best articulates the essence of the County's
rural character. The Green Infrastructure of Frederick County can be described as a diverse array
of inter -connected resources that give the rural environment its scenic beauty and valued
landscape.
At the core of the Green Infrastructure framework are "primary conservation resources such as
flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes and riparian buffers. These features are already protected by
County ordinances. The Green Infrastructure also incorporates other features of the landscape
that are not currently managed or protected by local ordinances, but are nevertheless valued by
the community. These features include forest land, farms, prominent ridgelines, and wildlife
habitats, as well as scenic vistas and viewsheds. These are referred to as "secondary
conservation resources". Secondary resources also include heritage and cultural features such as
historic buildings and battlefields, which, while not part of the green network, are important to
the rural character. The rural areas study working group has articulated features of the landscape
that warrant designation as secondary conservation resources and has drafted policies to promote
their retention.
Land Development:
The subdivision of land will likely have the greatest single impact on the future of the rural areas.
Particular concern was expressed at public and stakeholder workshops for reducing the impact of
2
large, suburban style developments, preserving agricultural and open land and allowing farmers
to sell off a few parcels in order to remain in business.
The rural areas study working group's preferred land development option, arrived at after a
consideration of all of these issues, has three elements:
• By -right development for one or two new parcels;
• By -right development for 25 acre or more "estate" lots; and
• All other subdivisions would require a rezoning to a new zoning category.
Only the rezoning element is described in detail below.
Rezoning
The new zoning category would allow a maximum gross density of one dwelling per five acres
for lots of up to 100 acres. Lots over 100 acres would be allowed a maximum gross density of
one dwelling per 25 acres, but only for that portion over 100 acres. The maximum allowable
density would be based on the parent tract at the time of adoption of a revised zoning ordinance.
Thus, a twenty acre parent tract would have the potential for four buildable lots; a 100 acre
parent tract would have the potential for 20 buildable lots; a 125 acre parent tract would have the
potential for 21 buildable lots; a 200 acre parcel would have the potential for 24 buildable lots;
and, a 500 acre parent tract would have the potential for 36 buildable lots. Small density bonuses
could be offered for a larger than required open space set-aside or for an easement on the set-
aside land.
Note: the working group did not reach a clear consensus on a minimum lot size. There was
some agreement on a 30, 000 ft2 minimum.
All requests for rezonings to the new district would require the submission of a report analyzing
the impacts of the rezoning. Rezonings would only be granted in cases where the impacts of the
development, including the impact on roads and capital facilities, such as schools, were
mitigated.
Conservation Subdivision Design
Conservation subdivision design would be mandatory for all rezonings to the new zoning district.
Conservation subdivision design describes residential development in which the majority of the
land is protected from development. The working group is proposing a conservation set -side of
60 percent. Conservation subdivision design differs from cluster design, such as the rural
preservation lots in the current Zoning Ordinance, in several important ways. It sets standards
for the quality and configuration of the open space to be preserved. It also allows the County to
exercise greater influence on the design of new subdivisions. As the Green Infrastructure
concept is the framework for all rural area planning, open land in conservation subdivisions
should, wherever practicable, link into the County's Green Infrastructure Network.
Standards
It is proposed that all rural subdivision streets, not just those in conservation design subdivisions,
be public streets dedicated to Frederick County for eventual acceptance into the state secondary
road system and should meet County and Virginia Department of Transportation standards and
requirements. Ordinances will also be reviewed to limit the number of parcels directly accessing
the existing secondary road network.
3
Ordinances will also be reviewed to strengthen setbacks. The working group is proposing a 300'
road corridor buffer and 150' perimeter buffer.
Conservation Easements
A recurrent theme in the public participation phase of the rural areas study was the wish of many
rural landowners not to develop their land. Often they want to keep a working farm or preserve a
family's property to pass down to future generations. However, due to the changing agricultural
economy and personal circumstances, landowners often need to get value out of their land. In
order to preserve rural character and discourage further subdivision, the County should
encourage landowners to enter into conservation easements.
A conservation easement is a simple legal agreement between a landowner and a government
agency or a non-profit conservation organization that places permanent limits on the future
development of the property in order to protect the conservation value of the land. The easement
may also specifically protect natural, scenic or historic features of the property. Conservation
easements, while typically donated, can also be purchased by a government agency or a non-
profit conservation organization where funding is available.
The voluntary donation of a conservation easement is an excellent method of open space, natural
resource and heritage protection. The landowner who donates a conservation easement
permanently protects the land, while retaining ownership and enjoyment of the property. There
is no public access to conservation easement properties. In many cases the donation of a
conservation easement provides substantial federal, state and local tax advantages and estate
planning benefits to the landowner. The public benefits through the protection of important
natural and cultural resources and scenic vistas. In addition local taxpayers will never have to
pay for the expensive public services, such as schools, roads, police, etc., that a new residential
development would have demanded. Therefore, this County should commit itself to the
establishment of a Conservation Easement Authority and a Conservation Easement Purchase
Program. Funding for the purchase of these conservation easements could come from grants and
from tax-deductible cash donations to the authority. This authority would also have the power to
accept voluntary conservation easements.
Rural Economy:
The rural economy of the County plays a significant role in the life and livelihood of its
inhabitants. The County actively seeks a thriving rural economy. The rural areas are not scenic
backdrops for the urban areas. They provide jobs and a way of life worth preserving.
A riculture
At the present time, agriculture is the basis for the rural economy. However, the role and extent
of agriculture is changing and the County must address these changes. Traditional large scale
farming operations are declining. Farm profits continue to decline. While Frederick County has
long been associated with the apple industry, apple growing is declining. The number of acres in
apple trees declined 17% in the last five years. Countering the decline in acreage for orchards is
an increase in land in forage, principally hay.
4
While the County will continue to promote and protect agriculture, alternative markets and
alternative crops must be explored. In addition commercial alternatives to agriculture must be
examined for those unable to continue with traditional farming.
Forestry
Forest land accounts for approximately 56% of the total land in Frederick County. However,
Frederick County's average annual timber harvest value ranks only 81St among the 98 counties in
Virginia. Despite its vast forests, Frederick County is not a major force in the Virginia timber
industry. Much more could be done to encourage forest management and increased timber
yields.
Equine Industry
Virginia is the 5th largest equine state in the U.S. The equine industry is Virginia is centered in
the Northern Region, which includes Frederick County, but is largely based in Loudoun and
Fauquier Counties. To date, Frederick County has not been a major force in the equine industry.
With the strength and growth of the equine industry in the northern region of Virginia and the
dominance of small, recreational facilities, Frederick County could take on a greater role in the
Virginia equine industry.
Tourism
Tourism is a growing industry in Virginia, expanding more than 47% from 1994 through 2002.
Frederick County's share of the Virginia tourism industry is small but growing. Some forms of
tourism particularly lend themselves to rural areas. These include scenic drives, hiking, wildlife
observation, equestrian activities, mountain biking, camps and bed and breakfast
accommodation, to name just a few. The County could take a stronger lead in promoting tourism
and recreation activities in the rural areas.
Rural Diversification
The County should complement its continued support of agriculture with enabling opportunities
for diversification. Economic activity which is compatible with agriculture should be
encouraged and promoted. Any activity must be compatible in terms of scale, use and intensity
with the rural environment. Land based tourism and recreation particularly lend themselves to
the rural environment, but their very success is contingent on the maintenance of the rural
character.
It is proposed that the County commit itself to the creation of a Rural Economy Task Force to
further study economic diversification. This task force should draw members from the local
farm community, local businesses, the Winchester Frederick County Economic Development
Commission, the Chamber of Commerce and others. The task force should examine in greater
detail the existing rural economy and explore alternatives to insure a vibrant rural economy.
One early task force undertaking should be to provide input to the Planning Commission in a
review of ordinances to enable rural diversification. This would help the County to encourage,
not impede, appropriate rural economic development.
E
It is also recommended that the County commit itself to appointing a staff member to serve as a
direct liaison to the rural community. This person would work directly with rural landowners to
explore alternative economic activities and also shepherd them through the development process.
The County should also make the rural economy a significant focus of the Winchester Frederick
County Economic Development Commission.
Rural Community Centers:
Rural community centers are small activity nodes or small centers of development in the rural
areas of Frederick County. The current Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies eleven Rural
Community Centers. These are:
Gore Reynolds Store
Gainesboro Round Hill
Armel Shawneeland/North Mountain
Star Tannery Whitacre/Cross Junction
Albin Clearbrook/Brucetown
Stephenson
The rural areas study working group examined the general roles of the eleven rural community
centers. The rural community centers have very different sizes and functions. It is
recommended that detailed studies of the rural community centers be undertaken to examine in
detail development patterns and trends and to formulate polices for their development. These
studies and any resulting policies should be developed with the close cooperation of the residents
of those areas. It is possible that two tiers of rural community centers may develop — 1) those
centers that function purely as a commercial crossroads, and 2) those centers that have a mix of
uses and function more as a village.
As these studies may take years to complete, an interim set of general policies for all of the rural
community centers is proposed. The proposed policies allow for new commercial development
consistent in scale and intensity with the surrounding area. Possible small-scale commercial uses
could be a general store, a bank or a restaurant. Institutional uses compatible with the area
would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Prior to the completion of a detailed study,
increased residential development will not be encouraged in any rural community center.
Therefore the RA District residential standards will continue to apply in the rural community
centers.
Transportation:
In the past, development in the rural areas has rarely taken account of the capacity or condition
of the road network. The impact of development on the roads has only been mitigated when a
rezoning has occurred. Most residential development in the rural areas has been by -right and so
few road improvements have been made by developers. The County and the state are not in a
financial position to pay for costly road improvements; therefore, the working group believes
that developers will need to play a bigger part in mitigating the impacts of their development.
As mentioned in the land development section, a rezoning element is recommended for all rural
subdivisions that add more than two new parcels that are smaller than 25 acres. Through the
rezoning process a developer will need to address the increase in traffic generated as a result of
the rezoning, the entrance locations, the changes in traffic patterns and the impact on the capacity
and efficiency of existing and planned roads. This is already a consideration for rezonings in the
UDA. In the rural areas, however, developers will also need to include a consideration of other
issues such as the movement of farm vehicles, the visual impact on a scenic road, and the
consequences of developing on rural rustic roads where a commitment has been made by the
County to restrict development. Rezonings would only be granted in cases where the impacts of
a development were mitigated.
Relationship of the Rural Areas to the Urban Development Areas (UDA):
The rural area study is anchored by the current Comprehensive Policy Plan principle that most
development, including most residential development, should be directed to the Urban
Development Area (UDA). The UDA is the appropriate location for urban and suburban
development. Through its designation of the UDA boundary, the County commits itself to
providing services including utilities, improved roads and other urban facilities for this type of
development. The UDA is intended to contain land to accommodate the urban and suburban
development that will occur throughout the next decade. The County annually reviews its UDA
boundaries to insure adequate land is set aside for growth. There is therefore no compelling
reason to accommodate urban or suburban development in the rural areas.
A foundation for all rural areas study policies will therefore be that the rural areas should not
include urban and suburban development. The County should not provide services such as
utilities in the rural area that will encourage urban and suburban development. It is not cost
effective for the County to provide such services in the rural areas when the County is committed
to providing and funding services in the UDA where growth is clearly directed. It is proposed
that the rural areas study clearly state that the extension of sewer and water lines into rural areas
outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is not appropriate.
Note: the working group did not reach a consensus on whether to allow communal health
systems in the rural areas.
Questions for Discussion
Ql Do you support the Green Infrastructure concept?
Q2 If you do not support the concept, why not?
Q3 Do you support the three elements of the land development proposal?
Q4 If not in total agreement, do you support subdivision of one or two lots by -right?
Q5 If not in total agreement, do you support large, 25 acre, "estate" lots by -right?
Q6 If not in total agreement, do you support a rezoning if a development includes more
than three lots of a size less than 25 acres?
Q7 If not in total agreement, do you support a continuation of the allowable density of
one new dwelling per five acres for parcels up to 100 acres?
Q8 if not in total agreement, do you support the lowering of density to one dwelling per
25 acres for lots over 100 acres, but only for that part over 100 acres?
Q9 Should conservation design subdivisions be a requirement for all but minor
subdivisions and estate lots?
Q10 Do you agree with the proposed road standards?
QI1 Do you agree with the proposed setback standards?
Q12 Should a minimum lot size be specified? If so, what should be the minimum size?
Q13 Should the County commit itself to establishing a Conservation Easement
Authority?
Q14 Do you support diversification of the rural economy?
Q15 Is there any industry or use that you think should be emphasized?
Q16 Is there any industry or use that you think should be prohibited?
Q17 Are you in favor of essentially leaving the rural community centers alone, with the
exception of allowing limited commercial development, until a detailed study of a
center is undertaken?
Q18 If not, what do you suggest?
Q19 What transportation impacts do you believe need to be addressed by developers in
the rural areas?
8
Q20 Do you agree with the general principle of focusing development in the UDA?
Q21 What is your opinion of communal health systems in the rural areas?
ITEM #2
Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) Requests
Plan Amendment Requests Under Review
Overview:
At a July 12, 2004 joint work session of the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), eleven Comprehensive Policy Plan
Amendment (CPPA) applications were reviewed. Of these eleven requests, two were considered
by the Board of Supervisors to merit further study and formal action through the public hearing
process.
The two requests are 1) a request that the Solenberger/Bridgeforth property be included within
the Urban Development Area (UDA) (application #08-04), and 2) a request that a portion of the
Tasker Woods site be included within the Sewer and Water Service Areas (SWSA) (application
#04-04). A copy of each of these applications is included with this agenda. Please note that with
application #04-04, only the request for the extension of the SWSA on the south section of
Tasker Woods is being studied.
These two requests will now proceed through a full review process. The first step in that process
is for study and consideration by the CPPS. The CPPS will then forward its recommendations
on the two applications to the Planning Commission. The two applications will be discussed
briefly at the CPPS meeting on August 9th. The requests will be discussed in full and
presentations will be made by the two applicants at the September 13th CPPS meeting.
[L
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMEN"I"
x'04-04
TASKER WOODS
COMPRE-IFIENki-t
VE
POLICY
PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PACKAGE
T'ASKER WOODS
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PHONE: (540) 665-565 _FAX: (540) 665-6395
Website: www.co.freden*ck.va.us/PIamingAndDevelopment/PlanningAndDev htm
(REVISED 02/25/04)
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENTS
February 25, 2004
Dear Applicant:
Each year, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors reviews requests for amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and initiates those proposed amendments that they feel merit consideration.
Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment consideration in 2004 must be received in the Planning
Department no later than close of business on June 1, 2004. A copy of the application form is attached.
Please read the entire application, including the Attachment, and respond in full to those questions that
pertain to the particular map or text amendment you are requesting. Incomplete applications shall not be
considered. CPPA applications will not be accepted after this date.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department at (540) 665-5651
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIATION REQUEST FORM
(Please type all information. The application will not be deemed complete unless all items
listed below have been submitted.)
A. Owner or Authorized Agent Information:
Name: PHR+A c/o Chuck Maddox
2. Project Name: Tasker Woods
Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22641
4. Telephone Number: 540-667-2139
B. Legal interest in the property affected or reason for the request:
The UDA adiacent to this site is built out and established uses surrounding this site
are primarily residential
C. Proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment — please provide the following
information.
1. For a map amendment:
Note: this application is for the Tasker Woods parcels only, however, the applicant
suggests the consideration of UDA changes include properties with boundaries to Route
522 as shown on attached exhibits.
a. GPIN(s): 76-A-49, 76 -A -48A 87-A-31 34 34A 34B 65 36 37
b. Parcel size (approximate acres): 133 acres
c. Plat of area proposed for CPPA amendment, including metes and bounds description.
d. Existing Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s): rural areas
e. Proposed Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s):
Urban Development & SWSA Area 165 acres SWSA areas 45 acres
f. Existing zoning and land use of the subject parcel
See attached
g. What use/zoning will be requested it amendment is approved?
Mixed uses — single family detached, single family attached and commercial
h. Describe (using text, photos, and maps as necessary) the existing zoning,
Comprehensive Policy Plan designations, and/or approved uses and densities along
with other characteristics of are within:
• 1/4 mile from the parcel(s) perimeter if the parcel is less than 20 acres in size;
• %2 mile is 21 — 100 acres in size; or
• 1 mile if more than 100 acres in size.
i. The name, mailing address, and parcel number of all property owners within 200 ft. of
the subject parcel(s). see attached
[2. Por a text amendment:
Not applicable
a. Purpose and intent of amendment.
b. Cite Plan chapter, goal, policy and/or action text that is proposed to be amended.
c. Proposed new or revised text.
(Note: Please attach and specify text changes with additions underlined and
deletions crossed through.)
d. Demonstrate how the proposal furthers the goals, policies/objectives, and action
strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Policy Plan chapter(s) relative to the
amendment request and why proposed revisions to said goals, policies, and action
strategies are appropriate.
e. Demonstrate how the proposal is internally consistent with other Comprehensive
Policy Plan components that are not the subject of the amendment.
f. What level of service impacts, if any, are associated with the request?
3. For all amendments:
a. Justification of proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment (provide
attachments if necessary). Describe why the change to the Comprehensive policy Plan
if being proposed.
The UDA in adjacent portions southeast development area is fully developed. This is a
logical comprehensive plan expansion which increases housing stock in UDA and
provides needed expansion of business zoning for economic development in Frederick
Countv.
b. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County relative to:
(See attached)
1. Community Design
2. Cultural Resources
3. Economic Development
4. Environment
5. Fire and Rescue
6. Housing
7. Land Use
8. Libraries
9. Parks and open Space
10. Potable Water
11. Schools
12. Sewer
13. Telecommunications
14. Transportation
A. Other information as may be required by the Director of Planning, the Planning
Commission, or Board of County Supervisors during the review of the initiation request.
The applicant will be notified, in writing if additional information is required.
All applications must also contain the following items:
1. Special Power of Attorney Affidavit
2. Application Review Fee of $2,000 (payable to the Frederick County Treasurer)
Applicants should consult the Comprehensive policy Plan to identify goals, policies or action
strategies which are applicable to individual Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment requests,
Attachments
Tasker Woods
Property Owner Designation
(within %2 mile radius of property)
Tax ID #
76-A 31A
76-A-32
76-A-86
Name
Macedonia Cemetery Assoc.
Macedonia Cemetery Assoc.
George E. Bagley
Address
1941 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
1941 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
2000 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
--&ninz
RA
RA
RA
Use
Religious
Religious
Residential
76-A-85
Lane M. Reed
2456 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49D
Isabelle Kastak
2490 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76-A-84
Harry E & Phyliss J. Saville
2492 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
-RA
Residential
76 -A -49B
Minnie Mae Butler
2584 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49C
Roger L. & Joan F. Strosnider
2606 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49A
David S. & Pamela B. Lehr
2678 Front Royal Pike, -Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76-A-51 C
Clifton R. Strosnider
173 Armel Road, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76-A-48
Betty J. Tinsman
1804 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76 -A -47B
William & Loretta Heflin
113 Tadpole Lane, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-A-36
Richard & Catherine Palmer
1789 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-A-35
Wayne E. Wilkins
1847 Macedonia Church Road, White post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-A-34
Gary E. Whitacre
1861 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-5-55
Glen M. & Hattie P. Borrer
1873 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-5-59
Elizabeth Properties, LC
P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residential
76-5-61
Elizabeth Properties, LC
P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residential
76-5-62
Elizabeth Properties, LC
P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residential
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Tasker Woods Addendum
Page 1 of 2
Addendum
3b. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County relative to:
1. Community Design — The community design as shown on the attached exhibit is
an extension of existing urban development area which has "built out to the north
and east of this site. Canter Estates is near complete and the residential portion of
the Tasker Woods project is adjacent to and connected with the Canter Estates
project. The project will offer improvement of the roadway systems,'open space
and neighborhood recreational facilities. The sewer and water service area change
to the south is a logical extension to the business and industrial zoning district.
The new roadway constructed as a part of the Home Depot distribution project
has provided access to this property.
2. Cultural Resources — There are no known impacts on cultural resources as a result
of this project. The residential contingent next to business office and business
retail uses at Eastgate will provide for good neighborhood design with an
interconnectivity by pedestrian systems.
3. Economic Development — The 43.01 acres of proposed rezoning to business use
will provide economic development advantages to Frederick County.
4. Environment — The environmental impacts created by this project are primarily
along the stream channel which passes through the residential portion of the site.
This channel will be disturbed in very minor ways having to do principally with
utilities and pathways. There are no other significant environmental impacts
identified as a result of this project.
5. Fire and Rescue — There will be impacts on fire and rescue services and a proposed
mitigation of these impacts will be by proffer in accordance with the Frederick
County Impact Model.
6. Housing — This project expands the housing stock and inventory in Frederick
County within the urban development area which helps implement the
comprehensive plan. The proximity of housing to business, churches and schools
provides excellent quality of life conditions for this expansion.
7. Land Use — The geologic and topographic conditions are ideal for the proposed
uses and do not result in the elimination of bona fide agricultural uses in exchange.
The business and residential mix provides a balance which is considered to be in
keeping with the comprehensive plan.
8. Libraries — A proffer will be extended to help fund libraries in accordance with the
Frederick County Impact Model.
9. Parks and Open Space — Open space will be provided within the development as
well as active recreational uses i.e. soccer fields- In addition, proffers will be
extended to help fund County parks and recreation development.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Tasker Woods Addendum
Page 2 of 2
10. Potable Water — Potable water lines owned and operated by the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority extend through the site at this time. Site pressures and water
availability are considered adequate for the proposed uses.
11. Schools — The location of this site is proximate to schools provided by the
Frederick County School Board. Armel Elementary and the new middle school are
to the north on Route 522 and Sherando High School is located with easy access
from Tasker and Warrior Drives. Additionally a school proffer will be extended as
a part of the rezoning in accordance with the County's fiscal impact model.
12. Sewer — Sewer services exists in the Eastgate Industrial Park (a new sewage lift
station will be provided which will service all the residential contingent for this
project). Individual B-3 uses will have sewer pumps that will pump to the existing
Eastgate sewer collection system. Sewer access is considered acceptable and
manageable for the proposed UDA and SWSA extensions.
13. Telecommunications — Telecommunication systems are available in the Eastgate
Industrial Park and in Canter Estates adjacent to the site. There are no known
adverse impacts as a result of this project on telecommunications.
14. Transportation —The proposed expanded UDA and SWSA areas have excellent
road transportation capacity with principle access to an improved Macedonia
Church Road, U.S. Route 522 and Tasker Road. The proposed business uses will
have very satisfactory access to U.S. Route 522 by the new roadway constructed as
a result of the Home Depot warehouse construction. Transportation systems
created by these expanded uses will be acceptable and manageable for Frederick
County.
n ,
ea r •, � •
'MEL ,Y'0 t 4r .. n, - -. _ ,fry: aAR',10 . T:i�. t • �.
t
A• p ra T n. h-•. '•A y 'r / :r t~ �•�R .Jyi. f ..7 ;. +�' �•� m
* .fr A� Ill r !'i ' 10• '
a� ` ''• '^car- =� ez` i[ Yr'i.. c•. ..
�„ _ •'a-.. ys t `.!` !argnr t; .�:_�
Vot, to
4, P '„
� Anti F*. �^
'•.r r'.'s C I, A ,* i!",� 4.:: _ ; ., 2 -,M., W. �ll•'r .' + : "z,*a w. .,y !i
P b,22pp*�X .,jtf i p q iZ
1p
an wip
2.
0*7
y�•� ,f'% �'k•,
� i � �� � „l \�i'y fir• 3�'
Poo
_ 4 u •.111/// ..{t f r
JJ .
7.
*.,� ray, ,- �.17.
av oa, + r \ p�t•fi ?' ;1�,. + l
Va-
} E
A,� h ^ ^Y _9 - $ •,+, •'Q�; •• ice, ,{Y`
j r � i.�. 'e;- `�4i �;•' ,� �` ,'" re4 �+�., �,i�t .�'..+�� -'V � :91� �� V � f t�• ,�:
>p SIJ
lift
.' , r.+
Ae
,fir Pt /A !. ; , ti: ^ ,...' i ,� .�''�` t •_. ,. � 'ac� . �S �
■� EXISTING UDA
■ • UDA EXPAND
EXISTING SWSA
■ ■� SWSA EXPAND
PROPOSED EXPANSION
PARCELS
TASKER WOODS gilbert w. clifford & associates
q` a division of
Ko PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc
O p 117 E P'icadk St. wnchesK Virginia 22601
FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGINIA VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAk (540) 665-0493
Ll
RP
w
D RA
UDA & SWSA
EXPANSION AREA
/,,165 Acres
SID ��►�%
/
� III
.
�
fr����,'
�
y.
t�
iii. �WE 9
•
:�.' ��
L
1• fl � �1
't't 1 ■
TASKER WOODS gilbert w. Clifford & associates
II a division of
6 Q) EX/STING ZONING PLAN Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc
O 117 E. PicodlRi>c
ly St nchester, 46a 22601
FREDERICK COUNTY, WRCIMA VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
r o
n
z
76
ak _
g: s JN
A
4
Arm
i
27
t"
1
i
EASTGA TE PROPERTIES g+1 w• (WOM MWft
a division of
EXISTING ZONING PLAN Patton, Hams, Rust & Associates, pc
O 117 E Picadl� St Winchester, Virginia 22601
FRMERICK COUNT„ Kl?6'Mg4 VOICE: (540) 567-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
Figure
•IoJ CU u -T UO; obp
C -W. Clifford & assoc. 540-665-0493 p.2
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
(TO BE CONPLETED BY APPLYCANI)
suBJEC`T PROPERTY OWNERS AFMAVTT
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www_cu.rrederick-va.us
This 20th day of May 2004
(Day) (Month) (Year)
Allan Hudson, ManagingMember, RealTech, LLC
(Owner/Contract Purchaser/Authorized Agent)
hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application,
is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Comuassioncr of
the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records_
11--� �� k" -
( --W l Iltraet Purcbasci/Authorized Agent)
(circle one)
COMMONWEALTH OF t' 1
a�4l4 • I,/� • tL
Subv,=ibed and sworn to before me this CxNay of in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal
P LIC
My Commission expires.
0
g•w. ciit-ford & assoc. 540-665-0493
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDMCK
(TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT )
SUBXCT PROPERTY OWNERS AFfMAVIT
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site www.coJrederickva.ns
Tbit 20th day of May ?nn4
(Day) (Month) (Year)
A114n Hudson, Managing Member, Allden, LLC
(Owner/Conrad Purchaser/Authorized Agent)
hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application,
is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Comuussioncr of
the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records.
. ., 17
COMMONWFALTH OF r
.r4;+; 2 % ./.1/,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal z
/ ,iN0XARX PUl
My Commission expires: l/�/ ���
ot
p.2
nali --u u -r ud:jbp C.w. ciittora & assoc. 540-665-0493 p.2
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDMCK
(To B-4 CON£PLETED BY APPIACAN'i)
SUBJECT ]PROPERTY OWNERS AF 'IDAVTT
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.cu.rrederick.va.ns
d day of 77-w4This �' I► � C\I ��
(Day) (Month) I (Yew)
L
Wttj�jS Q ty tvwper/l.on[rnc[ r 5 I-,?
hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application,
is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Comuussio❑er of
the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records.
(owner/ tract Pur ' •ci/Authorized Agcnt)
n )
(circle one)
COMMONWEALTH OF VTRGRgk- ..of
Subscribed and cwom to before me this C�9J day of in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal_
PUB IC
My Commission expires: %
7
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
�i
I, SST G. RITTER and I, MARY M. RITTER, residing at 3022 Front Royal Pike,
Winchester, Virginia 22602, have made and constituted ALLAN B. HUDSON, of the County of
Fairfax, Virginia, my true and lawful attorney-in-fact (hereinafter referred to as "my attorney"),
who is hereby authorized for me and in my name to do the following specific acts:
1. To act for and in my behalf with respect to all applications relating to the property
herein described, including Rezoning, Proffers, Conditional Use Permits, Master Development
Plans (Preliminary and Final), Subdivisions, and Site Plans for the real property containing 4.7±
acres, known as Tax Map parcel 87-A-34, County of Frederick, Virginia, to -wit:
All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 4.7 acres, more or less, lying
in the Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land
that was conveyed to Steven G. Ritter and Mary M. Ritter by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book
501 at Page 255.
2. To execute, acknowledge, and deliver any contract, or any other document, that
may, in the opinion of my attorney, be necessary or desirable in connection with the above;
3. To perform any other acts or execute any other documents that are necessary or,
in the opinion of my attorney, ought to be done in connection with the above;
4. This Special Power of Attorney is limited to the property described in Paragraph
1, and does not give my attorney authority to act on my behalf for any purpose not related to the
above described property.
5. I hereby confirm all lawful actions that may be taken by my attorney pursuant to
this Special Power of Attorney. An affidavit executed by my attorney, setting forth that at the
time of doing any act pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney, he did not have actual
knowledge or had not received notice of the revocation or termination of this Special Power of
Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or had not received notice of any facts indicating
same, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of the non -revocation or non -
termination of this Special Power of Attorney at such time. I further declare that, as against me
or persons claiming under me, everything that my attorney shall do pursuant to this Special
Power of Attorney shall be valid and binding in favor of any person or entity claiming the benefit
hereof who has not received written notice that this Special Power of Attorney has been revoked.
This Special Power of Attorney shall terminate one year from the date below, but may,
upon my written consent, be extended for an additional year for purposes of development.
This instrument is executed in more than one counterpart, any one of which shall, for all
purposes, be deemed an original.
WITNESS my signature and seal this day ofn , 2004.
S G. Ritter
Srti�"v� sE�
Mary M. tter
STATE OF i r�ct
CITY/COUNTY Orli., i( lL� , to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me b S �J�
of k� Yom• Ritter this
day . 24
4° n 52004.
rtairy Public
My commission expires
STATE OF �( t Y4-
CITYXOUNTY O to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by Mary M. Ritter this
14 day of A0 r, , 2004.
f \1N41i1f81i///�I
Notary -Public �J•00•N'�
N%
:'offo
My commission expires -i _ _
OF
i
SPECL&L POWER OF ATTORNEY
I, JULIA LESKO BISHOP, residing at 114 Orchard Drive, Midwest City, Oklahoma,
73110, have made and constituted ALLAN B. HUDSON, of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, my
true and lawful attorney-in-fact (hereinafter referred to as "my attorney"),, who is hereby
authorized for me and in my name to do the following specific acts:
1. To act for and in my behalf with respect to all applications relating to the property
herein described, including Rezoning, Proffers, Conditional Use Permits, Master Development
Plans (Preliminary and Final), Subdivisions, and Site Plans for the real property known as Tax
Map parcels 87-A-31 and 87-A-32, located in the County of Frederick, Virginia, to -wit:
(1) All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 14 acres, more or less,
lying and being situate about 8 miles South of Winchester, near Armel, in the
Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land that was
conveyed to John S. Coe, et ux, by William D. Spicer, et ux, by deed dated April
10, 1948, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia in Deed Book 204, at Page 584, said deed including by specific reference
a 10 -foot right of way leading to the Front Royal Pike (U.S. Route 522).
(2) All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 9 acres, more or less,
lying and being situate along the Northwestern side of Wright's Run, near Armel,
in the Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land
that was conveyed to John S. Coe, et ux, by Stuart M. Perry, et al, by deed dated
January 15, 1949, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 208, at Page 304.
Said parcels being the same land conveyed by deed of John S. Coe, et ux, to
Michael Lesko and Helen R. Lesko, his wife, with common law right of
survivorship, dated June 3, 1957, and recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed
Book 247, at Page 76.
2. To execute, acknowledge, and deliver any contract, or any other document, that
may, in the opinion of my attorney, be necessary or desirable in connection with the above;
3. To perform any other acts or execute any other documents that are necessary or,
in the opinion of my attorney, ought to be done in connection with the above;
4. This Special Power of Attorney is limited to the property described in Paragraph
1, and does not give my attorney authority to act on my behalf for any purpose not related to the
above described property.
5. I hereby confirm all lawful actions that may be taken by my attorney pursuant to
this Special Power of Attorney. An affidavit executed by my attorney, setting forth that at the
time of doing any act pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney, he did not have actual
knowledge or had not received notice of the revocation or termination of this Special Power of
Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or had not received notice of any facts indicating
same, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of the non -revocation or non -
termination of this Special Power of Attorney at such time. I further declare that, as against me
or persons claiming under me, everything that my attorney shall do pursuant to this Special
Power of Attorney shall be valid) and binding in favor of any person or entity claiming the benefit
hereof who has not received written notice that this Special Power of Attorney has been revoked.
This Special Power of Attorney shall terminate one year from the date below, but may,
upon my written consent, be extended for an additional year for purposes of development.
This instrument is executed in more than one counterpart, any one of which shall, for all
purposes, be deemed an original.
r
WITNESS my signature and seal this it 3 day of _: t� (_ 2004.
0a
STATE OF kt Q h Cys 2Cz
CITY/COUNTY OF Q- /C� It, r mC� , to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by JULIA LESKO
BISHOP this la�day of d- , 2004.
42�ubl4l`��
My commission expires= ���1306FyP T
OR—
IN AND
O y� FOR
......
�� .yyoMA .cam`
3
COMPREHENSIVE POLIC% PLAN AMENDMENT
#08-04
SOLENBERGER/B IDGEE:� R"I H
SOLENBERGER/BRIDGEFORTH
COMPREHENSIVEW POLICY PLAN
AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Shawnee Magisterial District
Frederick County, Virginia
TM 63-((A))-1, 63 -((A)) -IA, 63-((A))-lE, 63 -((A)) -2D, & 63 -((A)) -2L
262.53 Acres
June 1, 2004
Current Owners: TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN T. SOLENBERGER TRUST
JEFFREY R. & GAYLE SOLENBERGER
RUTH D. BRIDGEFORTH
WILLIAM E. III & LISA W. BRIDGEFORTH
Contact Person: Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
540-662-4185
0 GREENWAY ENGINEERING
151 Windy Hill Lane
Founded in 1971 Winchesi.er, Virginia 22602
Telephone 540-662-4185
Engineers FAX 540-722-9528
Surveyors www.greenwayeng.coin
Greenway Engineering June 1, 2004 Solenberger/Bridgeforth CPPA
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIATION REQUEST FORM
(Please type all information. The application will not be deemed complete unless all items listed
below have been submitted.)
A. Owner or Authorized Agent Information:
1. Name: Trustees of the John T. Solenberger Trust Owners
Jeffrey R. and Gayle Solenberger, Owners
Ruth D. Bridgeforth, Owner
William E. III and Lisa W. Bridgeforth Owners
Greenway Engineering, Authorized Agent
2. Project Name: Solenberger/Brid eg forth
3. Mailing Address: Greenway En ineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
4. Telephone: 540-662-4185
B. Legal interest in the property affected or reason for the request:
The property owners requests the Comprehensive Policy Plan be amended so as to include the
subiect property in the Urban Development Area (UDA).
C. Proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment — please provide the following
information.
1. For a map amendment:
a. GPIN(s):
63-((A))-1, 63 -((A)) -IA, 63-((A))-lE
63 -((A)) -2D, 63 -((A)) -2L
b. Parcel size (approximate acres): 262.53 acres aggregate
c. Plat of area proposed for CPPA amendment, including metes and bounds description.
See Attachments 2 and 3 for depiction of subject
parcels with metes and bounds noted.
File 93237S/EAW
Greenway Engineering
June 1, 2004 Solenberger/Bridgeforth CPPA
d. Existing Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s): Rural area
e. Proposed Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s): Suburban Residential & Mixed Use
f. Existing zoning and land use of the subject parcel: RA, Rural Area District
Residential Agricultural & Orchard
g. What use/zoning will be requested if amendment is approved?
RP. Residential Performance District
B2, Business General District
h. Describe (using text, photos, and maps as necessary) the existing zoning, Comprehensive
Policy Plan designations, and/or approved uses and densities along with other characteristics that
are within:
'A mile from the parcel(s) perimeter if the parcel is less than 20 acres in size;
'/2 mile if 21-100 acres in size; or
1 mile if more than 100 acres in size.
The aggregate area of the subject property is approximately 262.53 acres; therefore the study
area includes properties within a one -mile (5,280 foot) radius. Reference Attachment 2,
Adjoining Property Map Solenberger/Brid�e Orth.
The zoning of the subject property_is RA, Rural Areas District.
i. The name, mailing address, and parcel number of all property owners within 200 feet of
the subject parcel(s). Reference Attachment 1, Owners o Properties within 200 feet.
2. For a text amendment:
a. Purpose and intent of amendment.
N/A
b. Cite Plan chapter, goal, policy and/or action strategy text that is proposed to be amended.
N/A
File 93237S/EAW 2
Greenway Engineering June 1, 2004 Solenberger/Bridgeforth CPPA
C. Proposed new or revised text.
(Please attach and specify text changes with additions underlined and deletions
crossed through.)
N/A
d. Demonstrate how the proposal furthers the goals, policies/objectives, and action
strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Policy Plan chapter(s) relative to the
amendment request and why proposed revisions to said goals, policies, and action
strategies are appropriate.
N/A
Demonstrate how the proposal is internally consistent with other Comprehensive Policy
Plan components that are not the subject of the amendment.
N/A
f. What level of service impacts, if any, are associated with the request?
N/A
3. For all amendments:
a. Justification of proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment (provide attachments if
necessary). Describe why the change to the Comprehensive Policy Plan is proposed.
The property owners request the Comprehensive Policy Plan be amended to include the subject
property in the Urban Development Area (UDA). The subject properties are located in the
quadrant that is bound by Route 37 Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) Merriman's Lane (Route
62 1) and the City of Winchester. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors recently expanded
the UDA to include the White and Marshal properties within this quadrant which are located
immediately north and east of the subject properties The White and Marshal properties were
included in the Western Jubal Early Drive Land Use Plan which proposes suburban residential
land use with mixed land use to include residential and service commercial components The
Solenberger and Bridegeforth parcels will complete the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan for
this quadrant through the continuance of suburban residential land use with service commercial
and office primarily along Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) near the Route 37 interch4me
The Frederick County Board of Supervisors removed tax parcel 63-((A))-1 consisting of 183
acres from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District on May 25 2004 The Board
of Supervisors determined that removal of this parcel was appropriate due to the land planning
activities that have occurred in this geographic area of the County. Furthermore removal of this
property from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District will allow for the
File #3237S/EAW
Greenway Engineering June 1, 2004 Solenberger/Bridgeforth CPPA
implementation of a north -to -south major collector road to be developed which will connect
Jubal Early Drive to Cedar Creek Grade. Removal of this parcel from the South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District was an important policy decision to ensure that the
transportation elements of the Western Jubal Early Drive Land Use Plan could be achieved.
b. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County relative to:
1. Community Design
The inclusion of the Solenberger and Brid efg orth parcels will allow for the expansion of the
Western Jubal Early Drive Land Use Plan to include the entire quadrant that is bound by Route
37, Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), Merriman's Lane (Route 621) and the City of Winchester.
This expansion will allow for the comprehensive planning of land use patterns transportation
networks and infrastructure for this geographic area of the County. Therefore inclusion of the
subject properties will benefit the County in community design planning efforts.
2. Cultural Resources
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies the Stuart Brown House (34-1239) as
a potentially significant property. This house is located on the 183 -acre Solenbergerap rcel
identified as tax parcel 63 -((A)) -l. The Stuart Brown House has been utilized as a residential
rental structure for several years. It is anticipated that this structure will be inventoried to allow
for historic documentation and will be removed once the property is developed for residential
and commercial land use.
3. Economic Development
Inclusion of the subject property in the UDA and its subsequent development will contribute to
County economic development through increased tax revenues and employment opportunities.
Much of the subject real estate is currently taxed at an undeveloped/agricultural land rate.
Inclusion in the UDA is requested in order to subsequently have the 262.53 -acre site rezoned for
up -scale suburban residential and limited commercial uses. The new homes and the families
living in them will generate real estate and personal property taxes. Commercial development
will provide employment while contributing various commercial tax revenues. Other fiscal
impacts of development will be mitigated through monetary proffers received during the
conditional zoningrop cess.
File ft' 237S/EAW
Greenway Engineering June 1, 2004 Solenberger/Bridgeforth CPPA
4. Environment
The subject properties have been utilized -primarily for agricultural purposes over time The
Solenberger parcels are still actively utilized for agricultural land use while the Brid eforth
parcels have been utilized for residential purposes since the 1980's The subject properties do
not contain environmentally sensitive areasless one wetland area that is identified on the
Solenberger property.
The introduction of public water and sanitary sewer, as opposed to individual wells and on-site
septic disposal will improve the environment. Furthermore development of the property will
allow for controlled stormwater management design and the implementation of best management_
practices to improve stormwater volume and quality. The application of agricultural chemicals
and fertilizers will be eliminated when the property is developed
5. Fire and Rescue
The construction of Jubal Early Drive with a future interchange at Route 37 along with the
development of a north to south major collector road connecting Cedar Creek Grade to Jubal
Early Drive will allow for improved emergency esponse times and will enhance access to the
Winchester Medical Center located just to the north of the subject properties Capital facilities
costs associated with the development of the subject properties will be mitigated through the
provision of monetary proffers that will be received during the conditional zoningrop cess
6. Housing
The development of the subject properties will allow for housing to be developed within the
UDA, thus implementing the housing goals for suburban residential development specified in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The County continues to work on policies that direct controlled
housing growth within the UDA to reduce governmental service costs and protect the rural areas
of the community from sprawl. Expansion of the UDA to include the Solenberger and
Bridgeforth properties will allow for the continuation of housing development trends to occur in
the correct geogrgphic area of the County_
7. Land Use
The development of the Solenberger and Brid efg_orth properties will allow for land use patterns
that are consistent with the recently adopted Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan The provision
of suburban residential land use and mixed land use to provide for service commercial and office
development opportunities is appropriate for this geographic area of the community. The
development of the subject properties will be consistent with the land use patterns that have
occurred along Jubal Early Drive and Cedar Creek Grade in the City of Winchester.
File #3237S/EAW
Greenway Engineering June 1, 2004 SolenbergerBridgeforth CPPA
8. Libraries
The development of the Solenberger and Brid efg orth properties will create an increased demand
for public library services. Advancements in internet technologies allow for individual
households and businesses to obtain information and conduct research without utilizing library
services; however, the library system continues to expand its service base as the community
grows. Capital facilities costs associated with the library system are accounted for in the
County's Fiscal Impact Model; therefore development of the subject properties will be mitigated
through the provision of monetary proffers that will be received during the conditional zoning
process.
9. Parks and Open Space
It is envisioned that the Solenberger and Bridgeforth properties will be developed with active
recreational amenities and pedestrian and bicycle facilities to allow for on-site recreational
opportunities for the end users. Inclusion of active recreational amenities will reduce the impacts
to the County's regional park system. Furthermore the development of the subject properties
will provide for a monetary proffer for each household that will provide for the fair share cost of
capital facilities for the regional parks stem.
10. Potable Water
The development of the subject properties will be accomplished through the extension of the
public water system to ensure that potable water is available for all land uses The Frederick
County Sanitation Authority is the water service provider for this geographic area of the County
unless their Board grants the authority for service to the City of Winchester Public Utilities
Recent conversations with the FCSA Board indicate that their long-range plans call for a 24 -inch
water line to loop Route 37 adjacent to the subject properties Furthermore public water lines
are already in place adjacent to the subject properties in the City of Winchester. On-site water
lines, laterals and meters will be paid for by the site developer and tap fees will be generated by
the water service provider to allow for investments in upgrades and expansions to the overall
water system servicing the community.
11. Schools
The development of the Solenberger and Brid efg orth properties will increase the demand for
public school services. The development of the subjects properties to include service
commercial and office land uses will generate tax revenues for the non -school children
components that will off set some of the residential impacts. Furthermore the County's Fiscal
Impact Model will be applied to all residential land uses to determine the capital facilities
impacts that are not covered by the revenues received from real estate taxes and personal
File #3237S/EAW
Greenway Engineering June 1, 2004 Solenberger/Bridgeforth CPPA
property taxes. The development of the subject properties will be further mitigated through the
provision of monetary proffers that will be received during the conditional zoning process
12. Sewer
The development of the subject properties will be accomplished through the extension of the
public sewer system to ensure that public sewer is available for all land uses. The Frederick
County Sanitation Authority is the sewer service provider for this geographic area of the County
unless their Board grants the authority for service to the City of Winchester Public Utilities.
Recent conversations with the FCSA Board indicate that their staff will conduct a feasibility
study to determine if sewer infrastructure can be extended from the Route 50 West area to the
subject properties. The FCSA Board has authorized the phase I and phase II implementation of
the sewer study that will increase the capacity of the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant
facility. Currently, the City of Winchester Public Utilities has an 18 -inch sewer transmission line
immediately north of the subject properties, as well as an eight -inch sewer line along Cedar
Creek Grade. On-site sewer lines laterals and meters will be paid for by the site developer and
tap fees will be generated by the sewer service provider to allow for investments in upgrades and
expansions to the overall sewer system servicing the community;
13. Telecommunications
It is not envisioned that telecommunications infrastructure will be developed on the subject
properties due to the proximity of existing towers and the ability to co -locate telecommunication
antennas on the electric transmission lines along Route 37.
14. Transportation
The development of the Solenberger and Bridgeforth properties will allow for the
implementation of the transportation elements identified in the Western Jubal Early Land Use
Plan. In particular, the development of the north to south major collector road that will connect
Jubal Early Drive to Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622). Furthermore the Winchester Area
Transportation Study (WATS) identifies improvements to Cedar Creek Grade from the existing
two-lane rural standard to an urban four -lane divided cross section which will allow for
improvements to the existing road system to occur without relying completely on public
transportation six-year road funds. It is envisioned that the development of the subject properties
will contain pedestrian and bicycle facility components; therefore the opportunity also exists for
intermodal transportation system development and connectivity.
File #3237S/EAW
Greenway Engineering June 1, 2004 SolenbergerBridgeforth CPPA
A. Other information as may be required by the Director of Planning, the Planning
Commission, or Board of County Supervisors during review of the initiation request. The
applicant will be notified, in writing, if additional information is required.
All applications must also contain the following items:
Special Power of Attorney Affidavit
Application Review Fee of $2,000 (payable to the Frederick County Treasurer)
Applicants should consult the Comprehensive Policy Plan to identify goals, policies or action
strategies which are applicable to individual Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment requests.
Attachments: Attachment 1, Owners of Properties within 200 feet
Attachment 2, Adjoining Property Map Solenberger/Bridgeforth
Attachment 3, Location and Land Use Map Solenberger/Bridgeforth
Attachment 4, Special Power of Attorney Affidavit
File #3237S/EAW
Greenway Engineering June 1, 2004 Solenberger/Bridgeforth CPPA
OWNERS OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET
Tax Map #
Owner of Record
Mailing Address
52-((A))-310
GLAIZE, FRED III & ANN W
POST OFFICE BOX 888
SABBAGH, BASSAM T & FRANCES C
11 I RIVERDALE CIRCLE
WINCHESTER, VA 22604
52-((18))-6
MADISON, DAVIS R & RONDA G
133 PARKINS LANE
R&T PACKING CORP C/O F&M TRUST CO
POST OFFICE BOX 2800
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
52-((18))-7
CODELLA, DOMENICO & MARIELA
143 PARKINS LANE
GREYSTONE PROPERTIES LLC
13 S LOUDOUN STREET
WINCIIEESTER VA 22602
52-((18))-8
ROUSE, JASON & TALMAGE, DAVINA
118PARKINS LANE
WILLOW GROVE LC
720 S BRADDOCK STREET
XXITNTP TRQ'PUD AIA
52-(20)(5)-42 MOHR, BRIEN & MARY LOU
106 TWIGG COURT
STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655
52-(20)(5)-43
SABBAGH, BASSAM T & FRANCES C
11 I RIVERDALE CIRCLE
STEPHENSON, VA 22655
52-(20)(5)-54
R&T PACKING CORP C/O F&M TRUST CO
POST OFFICE BOX 2800
WINCHESTER, VA 22604
53-((A))-91
GREYSTONE PROPERTIES LLC
13 S LOUDOUN STREET
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
53-((A))-92
WILLOW GROVE LC
720 S BRADDOCK STREET
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
53-((3))-A
WILLOW GROVE LC
720 S BRADDOCK STREET
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
53 -((3)) -AI
GORDON, JAMES C, JR
324 ORANGE LANE
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
62 -((A)) -71A
BELL, THOMAS S & KATHY G
4535 SAWGRASS COURT
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
63 -((A)) -1D
TRIPLE S ASSOCIATES
POST OFFICE BOX 2368
WINCHESTER, VA 22604
63-((A))-2
GREYSTONE PROPERTIES LLC
13 S LOUDOUN STREET
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
63 -((A)) -2A
GREYSTONE PROPERTIES LLC
13 S LOUDOUN STREET
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
63-((4))-2B
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
POST OFFICE BOX 67
RICHMOND, VA 23218
63-((4))-2C
HOLLIDAY, LARRY E SR & TERESA D,
1151 CEDAR CREEK GRADE
TRUSTEES
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
63 -((A)) -2E
BLUE RIDGE GRACE BRETHERN
1025 CEDAR CREEK GRADE
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
63 -((A)) -2F
RHODES, ROBERT M
1007 CEDAR CREEK GRADE
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
File #3237B&S/EAW.ajc
Greenway Engineering June 1, 2004 SolenbergerBridgeforth CPPA
Attachment 1
File #3237B&S/EAW.ajc
OWNERS OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET
Tax Map #
Owner of Record
Mailing Address
63-((A))-21
BEITZEL, MARLIN & DAWN
1115 CEDAR CREEK GRADE
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
63 -((A)) -2K
C&W PROPERTIES
POST OFFICE BOX 221
MILLWOOD, VA 22646
63-((51))-1
RITCHIE, REX E & HELEN J
141 CLAYHILL DRIVE
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
63-((52))-9
HENRY, RICHARD W & BONNIE G
665 GUARD HILL ROAD
MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645
63-((52))-10
BRUCE, TROY A & ELAINE L
160 CLAYHILL ROAD
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
Attachment 1
File #3237B&S/EAW.ajc
f.Vil NC -H E S'TE R
X \A /T
X67
S,v
✓� � err � ,.. "�jE �{"j�,, :�--.._� li�� � i �i'�
-jr
Ji I
;kl.
Vil
00
7
ow,
Nl
F WINCHESTER
b
CC
_4 t
URAL AREAS
U&
P
Rt a_rNTIAL
R#
"ESIDENT it.
z
ti
j
..
E ::Et.'��tei�li•G tali" � F _ _
41
' k7
6,3
I
sS
x
.z
W P.4
"iDUSTRIAt- GENERAL L:t.,. ."C l
CAA
E;tF 4 ii v& M iv'C4z s�-L 4C;
F WINCHESTER
b
CC
U&
!
0
z
ti
j
v S
41
' k7
I
sS
x
A ,
cc{ •Mf. 'J3
F WINCHESTER
b
0
41
' k7
1
MCS
A ,
cc{ •Mf. 'J3
t0
SY•
Val
CpG
� Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651
Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
Trustees of the John T. Solenberger Trust:
(Name) Cyndi Solenberger, John Solenberger,Jr.
(Phone) 540-664-2467
Jeffrey Solenberger, Stacy See
(Address) PO Box 2658 Winchester, VA 22604
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
Deed Book 872 477
X M=V% A72 on Page 474 , and is described as
63 1 A
Parcel: 63 Lot: lA Block: A Section: Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) 540-662-4185
(Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-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
❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
❑ Subdivision
❑ Site Plan
X Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment
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. J
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this ,;& day of 2002
f7
c -�t l Stale of Virginia, CityiCoun y o:
Lc. =1 i -i. Vii i^I l, a Notary Pubiic in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person's)
who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me
an as acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of J , 200'.
i
ILI �i'� 1 /,�.��_G My Commission Expires:-q-x�
l� ary Public
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651
Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
(Name) Jeffrey and Gayle Solenberaer (PhoneX4n-6ti4-2467
(Address) 1266 Cedar CrPPk Grad,- Winchester., «A 22h02
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
Instrument No.020017647 on Page , and is described as
Parcel: 6-3— Lot: i R Block: A Section: Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) 540-662-4185
(Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-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
❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
❑ Subdivision
❑ Site Plan
X Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment
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. P
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and�seal this �_��'�dq of fir , 2000
Signature(s) r l _� L�
Statsof Virginia, Cit-ylCoun y of j- �p�� r; LK , To -suit:
I,. '' 4 . �:, �- � 1, �',1 \ , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s)
who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me
r�has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this to day of Ct. , 200 CA
1 ) � „ ., `
i4?, Y i i v'(�� y' My Commission Expires: <<J �; U
Notary Public
Special Limited Power of Attorney
. County of Frederick, Virginia
Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651
Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
540-667-1821(William)
(Name) Ruth D Bridoeforth William E. B idea orthil(Phone)540-66 —8 .. (Ruth)
1100 Cedar Creek Grade Winchester, VA 22602 (William)
(Address) 1064 Cedar. Creek Grade Winchester. VA 22hm (Ruth)
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
Will Book 103 1365 (_(ktytti )
RNDee ,�13ook 742 on Page 634 i iam )
,and is described as
Parcel: 6- 63 Lot: 2 _ Block: A �ecti�n: Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Grppnway Engineering —6 -
(Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester-, VA 22602
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-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
❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
❑ Subdivision
❑ Site Plan
X Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment
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 my (our) hand and seal t 'stl�'day of 2004-,
Signature(s)
State of Virginia, CiiCouil� af_ C1 - ' C k". Te -.vit.
I,1 , i )i 1(, L � N , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s)
who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me
andrl�cl-lt
knowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this- !`4Iday of ;v , 200 4-- .
k4, f t..j..,-- My Commission Expires: I—,--
Notary
Notary Public —
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
This 16 -
(Day)
(TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT)
SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS AFFIDAVIT
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederickva.us
day of
I, F\Alld' A, WYA-jii
(Owner/Contract
u'Nj C -
(Month)
(Year)
hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application,
is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Commissioner of
the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records.
L
(Owner/Cont act Purcha r/ uthorized
(circle one
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:
County of �- V-'Pde.t"iL
Subscribed and sworn to before me this k x l day of Zc)c 4-- in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed P ' 'pal.
1
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission expires: FE Y z'! 1
6