The URL can be used to link to this page

HRAB 05-16-06 Meeting AgendaTO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Historic Resources Advisory Board Candice E. Perkins, Planner II �*? May Meeting Agenda May 1, 2006 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) will be meeting on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 6:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Executive Session Room* in the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The HRAB will discuss the following items; AGENDA April 2006 Minutes 2. Hicks (Albin Center) Rezoning proposal, submitted by Artz & Associates 3. Review of the Red Hawk Estate Rezoning proposal, submitted by R. J. Turner 4. Other Please contact this office if you will not be able to attend the meeting. Thank you. *PLEASE NOTE MEETING LOCATION Access to this building is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter the building through the rear door of the Board Room. I would encourage committee members to park in the county parking lot located behind the new addition (accessible off of Cameron Street). CEP/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 A Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) April 18, 2006 Held in the Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room of the County Administrative Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, VA. Members Present: Rhoda Kriz (Chairman), Harold Lehman, Virginia McClure, Elizabeth Fravel, Felicia Hart, Travis Saunders, Maral Kalbian (Consultant), Martin Killingbeck, Richard Crane, Gary Oates (Planning Commission Liaison). Members Absent: Jamie Lupton Staff. Candice Perkins- Planner II, Kevin Henry- Planning Technician Agenda Items: March 2006 Minutes, Review Historical Plaque Program. Other: Historical Plaque Maps, Driving Tour The meeting began at 6:30 P.M. The first agenda item was to review the March 2006 minutes, which were approved unanimously. The Chairman went over what was discussed in the newspaper article that was published in regards to the historical plaque program. She mentioned that in addition to the article by the Winchester Star, the HRAB should conduct a press conference at one of the historical property locations. The press conference would be at some point after the Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting on June 14, 2006. Ms. Kalbian proposed having articles that feature one property per week in the Winchester Star, which the HRAB agreed upon. The HRAB was then provided information from Ms. Kalbian in regards to considering historical properties that received a rating of `5' in her book, and had not yet been sent a letter. For instance, the Burnett -Fries house and Valley Mill Farm would be eligible for a plaque. A map created by the Planning Department was then displayed to show members geographical relationships of historical plaque properties. Ms. Kalbian asked if any of the properties were within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Staff pointed out generally where the UDA line follows on the map. Discussions amongst the HRAB then took place with respect to who deserves a historical plaque. If the properties have been in fact identified by the register, then most likely these properties deserve a plaque. The final item of the evening was for members to start thinking of a theme for a driving tour of the historical properties. Mr. Lehman mentioned that the tour should be kept broad but needs to be able to be completed within two hours. The meeting was then adjourned at 7:50 P.M. Item # 2 Hicks (Albin Center) Rezoning Proposal The HRAB has been asked to review and provide comment on the Hicks rezoning proposal, which has been submitted by Artz & Associates. The proposal seeks to rezone 2.07 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the B2 (Business General) Zoning District. The property is located at 354 Bryarly Road (250 yards east of the intersection of Burnt Church Road and Route 522), in the Albin Rural Community Center. The applicant is proposing a two story office building which would consist of approximately 20,000 square feet (not to exceed 40,OOOsf). Prepared by the applicant and attached for your information are a location map and a copy of the proffers for the project. The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service, does not identify the Albin Center rezoning site or the surrounding areas as being part of a battlefield. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County Virginia identifies four structures within the immediate area of the subject site, one structure is located on-site. The sites that are listed in the survey are: • House, Route 789 (#34-543) — was located on site has recently been demolished • House, Route 789 (#34-542) • Edwards House (434-545) • Faith Revival Center (#34-544) The Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any of these structures as potentially significant, nor do any of the structures qualify for the national or state register of historic places. On April 1, 2004, staff, along with the HRAB's consultant Maral Kalbian and David Edwards of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, conducted a site visit to determine the historic significance of the Albin area. It was determined that the Albin Rural Community Center is potentially eligible as a historic district. This site visit was done as part of a previous HRAB submission for David Hicks. The applicant has attempted to address the impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding area in the proffer statement (attached). The applicant has proffered to limit the uses of the 2.07 acre parcel to the following: • General Business Offices • Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Offices • Legal Services • Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services • Accounting, Auditing and Bookkeeping Services • Management and Public Relation Services • Health Services & Medical Office Uses • Deli/Specialty "to go" Foods • Sign and Banner Shops, General Retail • Instrument Repair, Video Rental The applicant has proffered to limit the number of freestanding business signs to two monument style signs (not to exceed 12' in height) on the 2.07 acre parcel. No specifications as to the proposed square footage of the sign have been provided. The Zoning Ordinance sign regulation allows a maximum size of 100 square feet for business signs and allows a maximum size of 150 square feet for franchise businesses. The applicant has also proffered that the building will be built in conformance with the rendering called "Alban Center" prepared by Design Concepts. -Attached Please find attached for your information a map of the site, the impact analysis and the proffer statement provided by the applicant. Representatives of the applicant will be available at the HRAB meeting to provide additional information on the proposed rezoning. Staff will be seeking comments from the HRAB on the historical elements possibly impacted by proposed development. The comments will be included in the rezoning application package for the Albin Center rezoning proposal when it is submitted. Pictures of the site have been provided by staff. HIS'T'ORIC RESOURCE ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW APPLICATION is7��'/ 1(-� Frederick County Et 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 MEETING DATE Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: (540) 665-5651 Fax: (540) 665-6395 DATE STAMP ADDRESS OF PROJECT: jr c _ Z -Z 03 PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: PROPERTY OWNERS ADDRESS: Z3 ` /CSS TELEPHONE MBER: 4;' "— 4, M'_ 17-Gr1e1CK - ARCHITECTIDEISGNER: Z Z r . TELEPHONE NUMBER: - " Lescupuuu UL r ppiicauon: riease eescrine mienythe request of the application: (rezoning, master development plan, conditional use permit). Please be s ecific. d7�= This application is not complete until all of the following information has been provided to the Department of Planning and Development. Please check the materials that have been submitted. Copy of required application as described in 1.1 (1.1.1-1,1.4) a/ Description of proposed development or construction project, including proposed uses and general timeframe for development (1.2) Lk 2/G,� Status of any identified historic or archaeological resources on the site or adjacent to the site (e.g, located in any identified historic area, survey area, or battlefield site or individually listed on a local, state or national historic register, relevant information on record with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources) and presence of other historic structures or significant landscape features or archaeological sites; (1.3) YV Photographs (color) of all historic resources on the property (1.4) 6%, ��/c5"-Tc4ziC.fft— % y= c �y , ON 151 r ,1 Please note that the applicant or his/her appointed representative must be present at the meeting. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Ao�Irz c�rf�7'S Address: Telephone: �(�• (� 7 2. Property Owner (if different thin above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: Name: MIA-- E AC -7 7-,—;- Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Agency Comments ✓� Plat ✓' Fees Deed to property — Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid V-1" Proffer Statement 11 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: 6. A) Current Use of the Property: VA�-- B) Proposed Use of the Property: 2�.- C 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): r 70 0 s 12 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Magisterial:,��,��y Fire Service: Rescue ServiceW s »© Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres . Current Zonin Zoning Requested �Z:'o 7 XAT 43, 2 - Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: N / Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: ! Mobile Home:, Hotel Rooms: 5 -ware Foota e of Pro osed Uses Office: 0 C'00 f - Retail: Restaurant: 13 Service Station: A/ Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other: 3YL 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): v ��, Date: Date: Owner(s) : W l I--> A . 4 C Date: Date: /fCo AlF I1 David A. & Linda W Hicks Rezoning Request RA to B2 2.07 Ac. TM if 42-A-249 Located at 354 Bryarly Road, Frederick County Gainesboro Magisterial District Impact Analysis Statement Purpose- The purpose of this rezoning request is to rezone 2.07 Ac. To B2 and construct a two story office building that architecturally fits into the immediate surrounding area. Bacicl,round- Currently the property consists of a 2.01 Ac. Of mostly open land by deed dated June 24. 2005 and recorded instrument # 050013756 and conveyed to David A. and Linda W. Hicks. Location- The parcel is located on the west side of Rte. 522 (N. Frederick Pike), it also fronts on Bryarly Road (Rte. 789). The site is approximately 1/8 of a mile south of the intersection of Burnt Church Road and Rte. 522. Surrounding Properties -The sit is bounded by Rte. 522 to the east, Bryarly Road to the west, to the north by RA zoned property with a conditional use permit for a hair salon approximately 40 feet from boundary and by RA zoned property to the south which is vacant land. The nearest residence to the south is approximately 175 feet from boundary. The proposed rezoning would not have any significant affect on adjoining properties, regarding noise, fumes, pollution, odors, glare or other nuisance features. Traffic Impacts -The proposed rezoning of this site for a two story office building of approximately 23,000 SF would result in an increase of 2�,00 -/p_ f Eac� vehicles per day total based on the ITE Trip Generation Book, The 23,000 SF building as shown on attached plans reflects the maximum density for the site at this time, due to required buffers and number of required parking spaces for general office use. The maximum density allowed under the zoning ordinance can not be achieved due to these restriction's and therefore does not apply to the projected vehicle per day count. Currently the plan is proposed with a right in/right out entrance on Bryarly road and a right out, only entrance onto Rte. 522 -This would allow for vehicles entering the site in the morning with 50% coming. from each direction. We expect 90% of all exiting vehicles shall use the right out only entrance onto Rte. 522. Bryarly Road is currently a 20ft. wide pavement section with a speed limit of 45mph. This road section also currently handles 730 vehicles per day according to VDOT & latest traffic study, and would have no trouble handling the increase in traffic flow. We are unaware of any plans by the county or VDOT to widen or otherwise modify the existing road section. RTE. 522 is currently a four lane divided highway with a daily traffic count of VPD 18,000, based on VDOT's latest annual average daily traffic study. Traffic Impacts cont. VDOT has also already stated that they have no objections to either a right out only entrance onto Rte. 522, or a right in/right out entrance provided the proper turn lanes are constructed as shown on attached plan. Sewage Conveyance- The proposed office building would be served by a drainfield of sufficient size to handle the building load. A reserve- drain field site is also being provided. Both drainfield sites have excellent soil characteristics as determined by a local soil scientist, and are currently under review by the Health Department. Drainage -Storm drainage shall be handled by curb & gutter in association with an underground storm sewer system. Storm Water Management will be handled by the use of an underground detention/infiltration facility. Water Supply —Water shall be supplied by a well located onsite. Water usage for the proposed office building shall be minimal. Usage will be limited to bathroom usage and the making of coffee, etc. during an average eight hour day. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities- The proposed usage of the site will minimize solid waste to the usual general office type: paper, etc. A screened 10 foot by 10 foot concrete dumpster pad has been provided. Dumpster shall be emptied twice weekly. Historic Sites and Structures -This site is of no known historical interest value and have no historic buildings or other appurtenances located on site. Also, there are no known sites or buildings of any historical significance within the immediate area surrounding the proposed site. Impacts on Community Facilities -The impact of proposed rezoning will be minimal on any eominunity facilities. A) Schools -none B) Police -minimal Q )Fire & Rescue -minimal (volunteer) D) Parks & Recreation — none B) Solid Waste — Minimal (private) Other Impacts -There is no other impacts associated with the rezoning request. ]Proffers -See attached list. 2 Artz & Associates, PLC March 29,2006 TAX PARCEL 42-((A))-249 GA.INESBORO NIAGISTIERIAL DISTRICT Prelhninary Matters Alban Center Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Ft. 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 # for the rezoning of 2.07 acres from the R.A., Rural Areas District to establish 2.07 acres of B2, Business General District, 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 to 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 David A. Hicks and Lunda W. Hicks being all of Tax Map Parcel 42-((A))-249, and further described by Deed Instrument 050013750 recorded in the Frederick County Clerk of the court Office on June 24, 2005. March 29, 2006 Artz & Associates, PLC Preliminary Matters cont The applicant hereby proffers the following: A..) Land Use Restrictions Alban Center The applicants hereby proffer to limit the laird uses for the 2.07 acre parcel to the following: Land Use SIC General Business Offices ' Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Offices - Legal Services 81 Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services 871 Accounting, Auditing and Bookkeeping Services 872 Management and Public Relation Services 874 Health Services & Medical office Uses: Doctors, Dentists, Optometrists 80 Deli/Specialty to go Foods, Pizza, Ice Cream ETC. Limited Seating 7 or less) - Sign & Banner Shop (Advertising) - General Retail - Instrument Repair 7699 Video Rental 784• B.) , Site. A.ecess The applicants hereby proffer to limit a maximum of 2 entrances, one entrance comiection to North Frederick Pike (Route 522 north), and one entrance, connection to Bryarly Road (Rte. 789). 2 March 29, 2006 AjIz & Associates, PLC Preliminary Matters cont. C.) Structural Develoiprnen Albmi Center 1. The applicants hereby proffer to limit the development on the 2.07 acre parcel to a maximum of 40,000 feet of structural area. 2. The applicant hereby proffers to limit the structural height to sixty feet from the first floor to the apex of the roof.' 3. The applicant hereby proffer to utilize similar construction materials on all building walls including brick, vinyl or dry vit, and that the roof will be standing seam metal or dimensional shingle construction. 4. The applicants hereby proffer to develop the structure in substantial conformance with the perspective rendering entitled "ALBAN CENTS, " prepared by Design Concepts. D.) Businss Sip -us The applicants hereby proffer to limit the number of freestanding business signs to, (2) two on the 2.07 acre. parcel. The freestanding business signs dre proffered to be of monument style construction will not exceed twelve (12) feet in height. E.) Outdoor Storage The applicants hereby proffer to prohibit outdoor storage on the 2.07 acre parcel. F.) Monetaa Contribution for fire and Rescue Services The applicants hereby proffer to provide a cash payment of $2,000.00 to mitigate impact to Tire and Rescue Services. The applicants will provide the cash payment to Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia at the same time of building permit issuance for the 2.07 acre parcel. 3 March 29,2006 Ariz & Associates, PLC Preliminary Matteis cont. G.) Signatures Alban Center The condition proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant said owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant this rezoning and accepts the condition, the proffered condition shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: David A. Hicks By: Linda W. Hicks Conmionwealth of Virginia, A ' City/County of . �" j ,-.,ti.t .h� ;�k..► v'.:. To Wit: Date Date Tho foregoing instru vent was acknowledged before me this �: �c Yday of 2006 by . Ly n- t ) "d�) kA- 3 otary Public My Conlinission Expires 4 Page 1 of 1 Parcel l�a�___ Frederick County Department of Geographic Inforiiiation Systems http://gis.co.frederick.va.us/FreeancelClientIPublicAccessllpfintFrame.htinl 1/27/2006 71 B Ed�w' o ds Ln_ t. 1301 Rt 02 )u nb;or Ln. Rt. 852 )unbar St. 9� 95 92 279 97 �a c o 102 25 98 c� 103 cu 120 119118 rJ i MRS r A 6 125 124 8 115 126 � 107 C D-7113 114 108 111 3 110 109 U u A S � n �11�. � �� s i7 is t rt� � � s 130 Mo 22 132 247 24f� F-45 Q Ck1 131 244 2 pts. 253 K2531 244 2 pts_ 254 332-424 \'}�--- - .,�-� -:. ��r-� �Ta. 7& y \V" V qF lam+Val tr 40(. r -I '' :rr -G,.•:rii,iC�•:,4'wt�s�i�cs - f �''� Z. r�,�+ �.�:�L. - I �f I� 0 ; Iix �Y �' _ yam•{ ,��II �, -A `� , �13 `� � � •S �L..l i ?tai VIRGINIA t=ile no. 34=543 �r Negatve no(s).9808 ��' ' --i - — DIVISION Off' HISTORIC LANDMARKS 'thy HISTORIC OIS7'RICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORM ('itv/'limwn/ Villa ge Hamlet Albin County Frederick Street address or route number Route 789 U.S.G.S. Quad Winchester Historic name Common name Present use residential Building Style vernacular Original use residential Building Date(s)=• 1890--1910, c. 1900--1920, I. Construction Materials dwood frame ❑ brick bond: ❑ English ❑ Flemish ❑ —_-course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other ❑ stone ❑ random rubble ❑ coursed rubble ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ rock -(aced ❑ log: ❑ squared notching: ❑ V-rn,Ich ❑ saddle ❑ square ❑ camerae block ❑ terra cotta ❑ steel frame ❑ other ❑ unsquared Cl half dovelai! ❑ full dovetail ❑ diamond 2. Cladding Material ❑ weatherboard ❑ composition siding ❑ vertical siding [stucco ❑ board 8r batten ❑ aluminum or vinyl siding ❑ shingle: ❑ cast iron ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ asbestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ asphalt ❑ glass ❑ bricktex ❑ other 3. Stories (number) 2 fief low basement — El raised basement 4. Bays (number): front 3 - side (church) ® symmetrical ❑ asymmetrical 5. Roof Type ❑ shed parapet? gable ❑ pediment? ❑ parapet? ❑ clipped end'? ❑ cross gable? ❑ central front gable? ❑ other 6 Rooling Material ❑ hipped ❑ pyramidal? ❑ mansard ❑ false mansard ❑ gambrel ❑ flat ❑ parapet? ❑ roof not visible ❑ shingle ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) wood EA m-tal 7standing seam ❑ corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ tilc ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ slate ❑ not visible 7. Dormers (number): front.—side ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ hipped ❑ glazed 8. Primary Porch style Colonial Revival stories 1 levels ful height bays 3 materials wood description and decorative details Tuscan columns; paneled beams in entablature. 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 1/1 windows; story protruding bay entry w/ original door and tran 2 int. end flues; 4—light square attic window in gab 10. Major additions and alterations: side porch, int. end some new windows; new stucco; flue. new front porch;- rear 1—story II. Outbuildings: German lap storage barn; frame barn. 12. Landscape Features: MAture trees. 13. Significance: One of the older houses in the communi of Albin. Surveyed by: Leslie Giles Date: 8/89 M. - Ilk - tl .. f � . CF: ia^e W� �,�'• � ; 1 . sir � �.� i -7777. M. - Ilk - tl .. f � . CF: ia^e W� �,�'• � ; 1 . sir � �.� i File no. VIRCANIA PAI IQI"NJ " N i C.Vifli U 14- 1 A NJ A 0 w Q LN�gativc lio(sj. 9808 . ... ......... HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORM City/ l6wil'; Villa c U111111let, Albin County Frederick Street address or route number Route 789 U.S.G.S. Quad Winchester Historic name Common ilarne Present usc residential Building Style vernacular w/ Folk Victorian Original use r. --i ric-ni-An'! Building Date(s) c. 1870--1900, details 1. Construction Materials LJ wood frame EJ brick bond: El I- 'nglish 0 Flemish El --course American 0 stretcher 0 other 0 stone 0 random ruhble 0 coursed rubble Dashlar 0 dressed El rock -laced ❑ lug: El composition siding Cl s(l 11; 1 I -cd El UnAlMil-CLI notching: 0altiminum or vinyl siding 0 V -notch El half dovetail n saddle 0 full (Imetail 1-N(plare 0 d ialliond H concrele block 0 glass U ten a cotia 0 parapet? F,],,Iecl Iranic 0 rool'llol visible 1 -1 o0lcl 2. Cladding Material • %kellhel hoard El composition siding • wrtical siding ffslIIcc0 El board & batten 0altiminum or vinyl siding 0 shingle: El cast iroll 0 wood ❑ sheet metal D,Isl)cstos El enameled metal Da"phalt 0 glass 0 bricklex Elother c. 40 3. Stories (number) 2 --dri-1- FS(low basement split level ised basement 4. Bays (number): front 3 side (church) M symmetrical 0 asymmetrical 5. Rooflype 0 shed 11 hipped parapet? 11 pyramidal'? gable El mansard • pediment? El false mansard • parapet? El gambrel El clipped end? 011'a 0 cross gable? 0 parapet? 0 collral Front gable? 0 rool'llol visible Oother 6. Rooting Material d1fligi, Coll Illosit ioll ('isphalt, asbestos, etc.) 0 wood 0 Incull F. -I til andilig Scam 0 corrugated 0 pressed tin (simulated shingles) 0 the 0 pantile El flat 0 glared 0 slate 0 not visible 7. Domici%(numbet): lront.--side- 0 gable 0 pediment? 0 shed 0 hipped 8. Primary Porch stvic Colonial Revival stories levels - _—f-pl. 1- height bays 3 materials description and decorative details Unf-Lti-ted Doric columns; Paneled beam entablature -1 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 2/2 windows, 1/1 windows on 1st floor; 2 -story rear ell wl side po and ext. end chimney; decorative brackets in eaves; 2 -irrt-. - end flues; - boxed eorniee-,-deer-na474leer- w/ - trans 10. Major additions and alterations: above. Stucco added; 1 -story side porches enclosed. 11. Outbuildings: German lap frame garage; frame garage w/ quarters above; frame wash house(?). 12. Landscape Features: Mature trees. 13. Significance: One of the older houses in the community of Albin. Leslie Giles 8/89 ;� �:- rr , �� -ice. � ,� - - �, :::� ,... _ �; v � ;-a � •• • • �+� � - � tt�, SSjj �y-- :- . T , ` jSL11�. A .. � n1..G V� i0.- - _' 1 .:i t. • a Ni�l� ? t � v� _ _ J' ��p� � ti ��. �' � ".a �, - _ _ . '�� a.. _ � S ��. ', risk �� j s r � :`r `'. �y 1 r �`+�L a.� � !� �. �y ,; , isr�gt�,� �x�a ��'r+-s �,',� .� �}'�,�"p V hr � ra-�^djk`C �' � , .:, _ ' � 4 y � � '� �� i'' �� x'+,•�.;5�.� r e.-}�rarq" .trot `•1, 1,�. ,..� _ ' � �� . ��} � �'�� . �� y,. `1�4�-a+�.�:��i�""?�;�.., .��t� :'� }�ypJ,#ry�y3�n[/��Y -`s� �`-�. _ �_��yy � ��, .. V �ta •�„!!`1SV rf:.•:3*-1 y r'�PM.�. J4.� �+• �� V et VIRGINIA �Y LFilc no ... ---_ .. 34-545-- -- : DIVISION O UISTORiC LANDMARKS Ne dive nu s) 9809 I IISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY DORM Citv/'F)wn/village/Hamlet Albin SLrcet addrrss or route nunlx:r Route 789 11istoric name Present use residential Original use residential I. Construction Materials 4100d frame ❑ brick bond: ❑ C-nglish ❑ Flemish ❑ ---course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other ❑ stone 2. ❑�c omposilion siding ❑ random rubble 1� stucco ❑ coursed rubble ❑ aluminum or vinvl siding ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed D rock -laced ❑ log: ❑ sheet metal rl squared ❑ unsqumed notching: ❑ glass 0 v-nolch 1-1 hall dove(ail Ll saddle ❑ Full dokelail 1 square ❑ diamond D concrete block ❑ flat Ll let 1.1 colla ❑ parapet? ❑ steellrante ❑ roof not visible CI other- ther 2. Cladding Material ❑ wealherhoarcl ❑�c omposilion siding ❑ vertical siding 1� stucco ❑ hoard A: haven ❑ aluminum or vinvl siding ❑ shin&1c: ❑ cast Iron 0 wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ ashestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ asphalt ❑ glass ❑ hricktcx ❑ mansard ❑ other ---------- ---- County Frederick IJ.S.G.S. Quad Winchester Common name The Edwards House Building Style vernacular Building Date(s) mid to late 19th cent. , c. 1 3. Styries (number) 2 — Edlow basement ❑ raised basement 4 Bays (number): 1ront2 side (church) ❑ symmetrical �isymmetrical 5. Ralf "Iypc ❑ shed ❑ hipped k7 parapet? ❑ pyramidal? gable ❑ mansard ❑ pediment? ❑ false mansard ❑ parapet? ❑ gambrel ❑ clipped end? ❑ flat ❑ cross gable? ❑ parapet? ❑ central front gable? ❑ roof not visible n other G. Roofing Malcrial ❑ shingle n composition (asphafl, asbestos, etc.) f�wood nct�tl fvl ~landing scam 1_I corrugated Ll pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ the ❑ pantile ❑ Ilat ❑ glazed ❑ slate O riot visible 7. Dornmrs (number): front _--side _--- ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ hipped R. 1'rintary Porch — -- stvlc ___ Colonial Revival stories—1._____.._----- _-- levels _--full height--- bays —6. materials `rood, concrete block — description and decorative details Short Tuscan _columns _on_ decorative concrete block_ piers; wraps around house. 9. General supplementary description and decoration: Leaded, stained lass transom/1 window; transom over door; 2—story rotruding side bay; louvered shutters; 2—story rear in---._._..- -- ._ —_._ ..__........._... _ .._.. __.._.. _—..... — 10. Maior additions and alterations: Colonial Revival rear wing. L Outbuildings: Smokehouse and outhouse w/ pyramidal roo ; frame workshop w/ brickte: siding; concrete block offi E frame garage and shop. _ .... ... ... 12. Landscape pe features: Mature trees; low stone retaining wallaround property. 13. Significance: One of the older houses in the community if Albin. tinrveycd hv: -Leslie Giles ------------- Date: 8/89 n. NOW n. ��_ Y 'Y �.7 ♦'3 h xl P. i l �� '�"cw� ��yi?.Ew._s iy, !t ,,� . Tr M • � �r-: ,.�tm a S-1 9 y}T1 •cF s N _� nor '�{l�.•i •4 ��"� � '�i� Y •�� fii�,ypsF»++-4� � 1 ... i�.'+�.''.f-r R^�+�..rJ�.J�i .y.�.�3y7fi+•'-7 ai p',y_�-'___�_ ^\ 'NVIIt iNI,� I ileno. 34-544 3s� DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS Ncgatve no(s).9808.,9809 L — — ^' HISTORIC: DISTRICT/BRIEF a' SURVEY FORM City/'16wn/ Vile/ Hamlet Albin County Frederick Street address or route number Route 789 U.S.G.S. Quad Winchester Historic name Bethel Church Common name Faith Revival Center ['resent use church Building Stvic Gothic Revival Original use church Building Date(s)c. 1870--1900 I. ConstructioalMaterials L9 wood frame ❑ brick bond: ❑ higlish ❑ Flemish Cl _course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other ❑ stone ❑ random rubble ❑ coursed rubble ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ rock -laced ❑ log: ❑ Squared notching: ❑ V-nolch Cl sadd le ❑ stluarc ❑ concrete block ❑ terra cot la ❑ steel frame ❑ other --- 2. (Madding Material ❑ unstluared ❑ half dovetail ❑ full dovetail ❑ diamond ❑ wcatherhuard El composition siding ❑ vertical siding LJ stucco on bricktex ❑ hoard & batten ❑ aluminum or vinyl siding ❑ shingle: ❑ cast iron ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ asheslos ❑ enameled metal ❑ asphalt ❑ glass ❑ hi icklex ❑other 3. Sty�ries (number) Q low basement 4. _13_f�s(number): front Ly sytttmevical 5. Roof'lype ❑ shed parapet'? gable ❑ pediment? ❑ parapet'? ❑ clipped end? ❑ cross gable? ❑ central front gable? ❑ other -- -- ❑ raised basement side (church) ❑ asymmetrical ❑ hipped ❑ pyramidal'? ❑ mansard ❑ false mansard ❑ gambrel ❑ Ilat ❑ parapet? ❑ roof not visible 0. Rooting Material --__----.----._—_. Shingle ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) ❑ wood ff �m • al standing scant ❑ corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ the ❑ pantile ❑ Ilat ❑ glared ❑ slate ❑ not visible 7. Dornmrs(number): --front _—side ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ hipped 8. Primary Porch style vernacular stories—1---------- — levels — full height bays 1 materials wood, concrete, stucco description and decorative details Pedimented 1—bay entry portico w/ Tuscan columns on stuccoed concrete block piers. 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 4/4 Gothic rched windows; Gothic louvered shutters; 8—light roun indow in front gable end; double entry; ext end flue; ;uare vent window in front gable end. 0. Majorad(litionsandalterations: Original 4/4 windows rtially hidden by storm window enclosures; rear wing bays right, 3 bays left) w/ shed roof; side parapet; w—roof_.and_.stucco;_3-light_ cellar--mind-ow . Outbuildings: German lap outhouse. Landscape Features: Mature trees; gravel parking lot. . Significance: Church moved here from Old Bethel former] he Poor House Road in the 1920s --1930s. Surveyed by: Date: Leslie Giles 8/89 Item # 3 Red Hawk Estates Rezoning Proposal The HRAB has been asked to review and provide comment on the Red Hawk Estates rezoning proposal, which has been submitted by Mr. R.J. Turner. The proposal seeks to rezone 85.2 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. The property is located on the south side of Sulphur Springs Road (Route 656), near its intersection with Greenwood Road (Route 655). The applicant is proposing to build 58 single family homes and 166 townhouses. Prepared by the engineer and attached for your information are a location map and a copy of the proffers for the project. The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service does not identify the Red Hawk Estates rezoning site or the surrounding areas as being part of a battlefield. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County Virginia identifies four structures within the immediate area of the subject site; one structure is located on site. The sites that are listed in the survey are: • Abandoned Barn, Route 655 (434-1135) — located on site • Dawson, Gaylord House (#34-416) • Wilt -Dunn -Arnold House (#34-1131) — identified as potentially significant • Carper -Cunningham House (#34-1130) In addition to the abandoned barn on the property, the impact analysis statement also contains an archeological site (VDH 944FK550). This site was the location of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop. This site does not contain any structures and has been excavated in the past. Attached is information from a "Preliminary Archaeological Study of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop" done on the site by Skelly and Loy, Inc. The applicant has proffered to place a plaque at the site of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop. Please find attached for your information a map of the site, the impact analysis, portions of the submitted study by Skelly and Loy and the proffer statement provided by the applicant. Representatives of the applicant will be available at the HRAB meeting to provide additional information on the proposed rezoning. Staff will be seeking comments from the HRAB on the historical elements possibly impacted by proposed development. The comments will be included in the rezoning application package for the Red Hawk Estates rezoning proposal when it is submitted. Pictures of the site have been provided as well as information from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources files. HISTORIC RESOURCE ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW APPLICATION �pK CpG a f Frederick County 10 k . 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 MEETING DATE Winchester, Virginia 22601 " Telephone: (540) 665-5651 Fax: (540) 665-6395 DATE STAMP ADDRESS OF PROJECT: PROPERTY OWNERS TELEPHONE NUMBER ; I ' PROPERTY OWNERS ADDRESS: ARCHITECT/DEISGNER: 1�f C `, TELEPHONE NUMBE �l Description of Application: Please describe briefly the request of the application: (rezoning, master development plan, conditional use pe it). Please be specific. ry This application is not complete until all of the following information has been provided to the Department of Planning and Development. Please check the materials that have been submitted. Copy of required application as described in 1.1 (1.1.1-1.1.4) Description of proposed development or construction project, including proposed uses and general timeframe for development (1.2) ✓ Status of any identified historic or archaeological resources on the site or adjacent to the site (e.g, located in any identified historic area, survey area, or battlefield site or individually listed on a local, state or national historic register, relevant information on record with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources) and presence of other historic structures or significant landscape features or archaeological sites; (1.3) Photographs (color) of all historic resources on the property (1.4) PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN): 4 `-,,G (� Name of Applicant: 7C1TAWCyLG /,L Telef hone Number•- 4rD Address: Street � / CitY n/J1✓£/ ?5 T✓L State *�- Zip Code ' . c' Signature: Print Name: �'�c/%r Date: Please note th the applicant or his/her appointed representative must be present at the meeting. ;r APR 2 1 — -�5' Me& Haw] ' rla-1 tj Frederick County, Mughli I Tumer Entetprises. u synpoetic Datt': / January. 2('Kx, Community Plamn m & r sig, %—Wzymp"-'Uc ft2u nmp pn peny N--, and +'�PnEu4Y from Nontg —ry Engin—ing. *ptc— Pnzoncuep'OltKu> tva.g +orpaxs nlY hnV. n.c �m-• � - 1v`l11 re pr n sh rp '+ C:::; it r •^.- `,,,". Y Jr � �j'- !\ . I � �� 1�'� ,'% l:r i•� X -'�., _..1'+��// 0R' ��r i� I i/ - jl)�l r �fkaf f + / �r ,'/ / __� .,,,� ..` � ` '� j � �-•` ✓� ice/ t �\\ ~�. \ \\\�1\. \`� � i� `W-"�. �/ � _rte '� ` -'�/ ;�'\ T^i r � /` J l/I •k`_ \� �._ REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount Paid $ oning Amendment Number Date Received C Hearing Date $OSHearing Date. The following information shall be provided by the applicant. All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 1.07 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: s /�i✓ .r'J� Telephone: � 72-27-0'Z? Address: 2-27- Address: 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Telephone: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Name: lycwlf1 Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following items at have been included with this application. Location map t Agency Comments Plat ,/ Fees —v-7 Deed to property a/ Impact Analysis Statement 1/ Verification of taxes paid L/' Proffer Statement o/ 11 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: _ 7. Adjoining Property: ZONINGPARCEL ID NUMBER USE �' ll � r _ _ r S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): 12 to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number — r�(,�'�_f lt9Z'.Yf Districts L Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: High School: lv)w Middle School:( Elementary School: 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: � Townhome: /`6' Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Propo.s.ed.Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: 13 Warehouse: Other: 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick Cminty �Iirninia i (,:,al +', L'reACr:c11 n__ . t r _„ .b++++u. `v-1 aul11Vr1Le i icuciI & vUYuy officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Date: Owner(s): 14 Date: Date: _ i i UCL� REZONING LOTS _ / t _ _ W a ?on O 65 A -13A _ RA RESIDENNtL & AGRICULTURAL) 65-A-12 Z M2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEMIAL) _ _ O V Mt (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) /� Y .-` 82 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) �� _ 1 ` (y,l ix Li IX w uwl N\\), 6A -A-129 \ 65 -A -86A R 3 Yc 4 j' ,_, --.d' ' \ ' ' 1 ■ 65-A-800 Al 65-A-80 (� N ^ ^ y LANE 697A 4 :n L.` ° D'ON MALL _ ST. o o n SHAWNEE DIST. --1 uu pn SULPHURcr °� d SPXLYG RUN N L o '< 65 -A -97m a L uu L N U V ` i a Im C �— Li \ \ / ss-q-toa / CL` H �n BS '4�g A W 04/ LD 65-A-1038 �` / u W SURVEY:MA NONE DIZWN BY: JOB NO.: ✓0 64-A-168 Y // RD 0403007 �� ✓� rt- 3 SOOT/ 1000 SCALE: DATE: s0\ �\� Y t �... 65-A-Y03A ' C J. - / ` SHEET 0 �14eO' 08/23/05 65 k Y16 / \ Scale ' 500 f Ex IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES F. DRAINAGE The portion of the site south of Route 655, Sulphur Spring Road, has several localized high points and generally drains to the north and east. All stormwater runoff will discharge into Sulphur Spring Run. Storm Sewer improvements may be necessary to ensure runoff is able to get across Route 655, Sulphur Spring Road, upon development of the northern portion of the site. Any development on this site can be expected to increase stormwater runoff. It is assumed that with the existing site conditions and the propensity that Sulphur Spring Run has shown to flood, extensive stormwater management will be needed to serve the proposed future development of this site. Please see Exhibit 4 for drainage and topographical information. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The nearest citizens' trash convenience facility is located near the proposed site on Landfill Road which intersects Sulphur Spring Road approximately 1 mile east of the subject parcel. No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be required for the proposed development. H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The Redhawk Estates assemblage contains three (3) historic/archeological sites identified in Frederick County and Virginia Department of Historic Resources records. None is on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks register. 1) An archeological site on the property has been fairly well documented. The Applicant obtained a September 2002 report by the firm of Skelly and Loy, Inc., which was contracted by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to conduct archeological work at the former site of the Anthony Baecher pottery Shop (VDH #44FK550). The pottery shop site is located near Sulphur Spring Road along Sulphur Spring Run as shown on Exhibit Map . According to the Skelly and Loy report, Anthony Baecher established the earthenware shop ca. 1862 and continued its operation there through 1889. Mr. Baecher was a skilled ceramicist capable of producing exquisite art pieces, but found his niche producing and selling utilitarian earthenware pots of various types. No structure remains at the pottery shop site, but the archeologists were able to recover numerous pottery shards, as well as nails, brick fragments and pieces of kiln furniture, from their excavations. The study concludes that no further excavations are recommended for the site. Page 5 of 7 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT RED HAWK ESTATES 2) According to Skelly and Loy, "J.A. Baecher, grandson of Anthony Baecher, indicated that the shop and kiln were located between Sulphur Spring Road and Sulphur Spring Run, with a house, well, and barn located on the other side of the road." The second historic/archeological site (VDH #34-1135) contains a barn and stone foundation located across Sulphur Spring Road from the pottery shop site. However, the VDH survey form for the site indicates that the barn dates ca. 1890-1910, after Anthony Baecher closed his shop. The authors of the form indicate that there was probably once a dwelling associated with the barn. The barn today is in extremely poor condition, some walls having collapsed. 3) The third site is the Wilt -Dunn -Arnold House (VDH #34-1131), which sits on the bluff above Sulphur Spring Run. This vernacular Federal style house includes a front log portion dating from 1810 to 1830. It is speculated that the house was probably remodeled after the Civil War, when the rear two-story wing and Victorian trim were added. The Applicant plans to renovate the house to serve as a community center for Redhawk Estates residents. Exhibit shows other VDH identified historic properties in the vicinity of the site. None of this site is located with any Civil War battlefield identified in the National Park Services, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, published in 1992. I. COMMUNITY FACILITIES EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriffs Department. The nearest fire and rescue facility is the Round Hill Community Fire Company located on Northwestern Grade. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required for the area proposed to be rezoned. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capital cost for emergency service facilities attributable to this development is $163,158.00. The owner recognizes the importance of emergency services, and proposes to proffer a monetary contribution to the local emergency responder. See the attached Proffer Statement. PARKS AND RECREATION The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates that the projected capital cost for public park facilities attributable to this development is $281,847.00. See the following Proffer Statement #7. Page 6 of 7 1 OF 7 Sl 130 a 6 GREENWOOD HEIGHTS 1131 1 HISTORICAL PROPERTY KEY 329 - FORD HOUSE 415 - BAKER HOUSE 0 416 - GAYLORD DAWSON HOUSE 1153 1129 - CARPER-WYNN HOUSE** 1130 - CARPER - CUNNINGHAM HOUSE 1131 - WILT-DUNN-ARNOLD HOUSE ** 1132 - HOUSE, ROUTE 655 1133 - FULLER-CHAPMAN HOUSE** 1135 - ABANDONED BARN - ROUTE 655 1136 - KEYSER-EDMONSON HOUSE** 1151 - FORD -BRAITHWAITE 1174 - HOUSE ROUTE 50/17 1382 - FINCHAM HOUSE 1383 - MAUDE LOY HOUSE NOTE: ** INDICATES A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SITE AS DENOTED BY THE RURAL LANDMARKS SURVEY REPORT OF FREDERICK COUNTY ♦n Q Lu (n OZ WX0 CL _j J Y QQU = U aZE itw j W w = LL_ 0 0 a_ a J CLN M O n 0 0 C. 0 U rte//i _� �o L"-)� to C-4 I j� a3i N 5 Co�cc Wo N> u)�� s o C O to Q) .c O W s a 'n _ (p U N U _ z� J W :D W V)Z Z O ilo IZ SURVEY: C NA N/A DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: 1200 0 1200 SEM 0402015 SCALE: DATE: 1-=1200' 08/23/05 Proffer Statements Limitations on Land Use 1) Wildlife Habitat Area and Linear Park A 10.6 AC portion of the property on the south side of Sulphur Springs Road (VA Route 655) has been designated and studied as a wetland area. This area will be incorporated into the Master Development Plan as a wildlife habitat area. The existing native woodland and flora and fauna will be preserved. Where it is advisable, more of the same species or additional native species will be planted to enhance the area to help protect and preserve stream areas. Throughout the development there will be attention to sustainable landscapes and reduction of pollution runoff from impervious surfaces into Sulphur Spring Run and require storm water management and other designed pond areas. In sunny, open -space areas a mix of grasses with annual and perennial flowers will provide low - maintenance and attract birds and butterflies. It is the developer's intent to have the development named and certified as a Community Wildlife Habitat by the National Wildlife Federation. (Loudoun County's South Riding received the sixth such designation in the country in June 2004.) The certification is meant to applaud the effort, not provide a stamp of approval for particular kinds of suburban growth. The certification requires homeowners to register individual back yards with the Federation and make the development's common areas environmentally friendly. The developer will pursue this aspect of the project through surveys of butterflies, birds, wildflowers and invasive plants with the environmental studies program at Shenandoah University. 2) Preservation of Historic Site On the 29.97 AC portion of the property on the north side of Sulphur Springs Road (VA Route 656) is the remains of the Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop. This Frederick County treasure is noted in the report Skilled Potter, Mundane Pots: Preliminary Archaeological Study of Anthony Baecher Pottery Shop (44FK500) Frederick County, Virginia by Skelly and Loy, Inc. (September 2002). This 44 - page report with Appendix was prepared for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Threatened Sites Program. A plaque will be placed in the general location of the site and the site will be protected by the development design to prevent the site from being vandalized. Page 1 of 5 Off Site and on Site Facilities and lrn roVA ;mencs 3) Bus Parking Area A large concrete bus parking facility with shelter(s) will be provided immediately west of the entrance road (currently Brimstone Road) to the south side of the development. This facility will be designed to accept the potential of other buses should the existing bus operation in the local Winchester area be expanded to service this general development area. 4) Walking/Bike Trail/Path along Sulphur Spring Road Turner Enterprises, LLC will provide a 20 ft. wide macadam surface trail/path along the south side of Sulphur Spring Road. The trail/path can be connected to properties to the west and east of the development in the future. 5) Area Road Improvement Possible road improvements to be negotiated during the rezoning process. a) Giving of land for the widening of Sulphur Springs Road (VA Route 655) and paying 100% for a traffic light at Sulphur Springs and Brimstone Roads. a) Giving of land for the widening or relocation of Greenwood Road (VA Route 656). b) Providing interconnectivity with the parcels directly to the west of the development, the Arnold tract (45 AC) and to the proposed road through the Perry/Arcadia Development parcels to U.S. Route 50 at the intersection of U.S. Route 50 and Independence Drive. Site Layout 6) The site layout will facilitate the movement of people throughout the development area and to future facilities and developments as they occur in this area of Frederick County (See Cash and Other Contributions, below). Cash and Other Contributions 7) Soccer Field for the Area The investment by Turner Enterprises, LLC in the 85 AC proposed development has also included the proposal to purchase the previous Frederick County landfill Page 4 of 5 4 11 it Ll ABSTRACT In April 2002, Skelly and Loy, Inc. conducted preliminary archaeological investigations of the Anthony Baecher pottery shop site (44FK550) in Frederick County, Virginia. The project was sponsored by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Threatened Sites Program. The site contains the former earthenware pottery shop of Anthony Baecher, who potted here from ca. 1862 until his death in 1889. The site is threatened by ongoing erosion and uncontrolled excavations by collectors. The landowner limited the field work to a single day. Four 1.0 x 1.0 m (3.3 x 3.3 ft) units, a 3.0 x 0.5 m (9.8x 1.6 ft) trench, and a single 0.5 x 0.5 m (1.6 x 1.6 ft) unit were excavated. No intact waster dumps or kiln remnants were encountered, but moderate amounts of earthenware were recovered. Because a large amount of material was not recovered, the scope of work was modified to include analysis of previously collected material from the site. In total, 398 sherds from Comstock's work in the 1980s, 380 sherds from collections in 1998, and 1,474 sherds from the present excavations were analyzed. Prior to this project, Baecher was known from surviving, whole, marked pieces. He was considered a master folk potter for his use of figures and applied decorations and for his broad pallet of imaginative glaze techniques. The recovered archaeological material was found in stark contrast, attesting to day-to-day manufacture of crocks of simple decorations, basic glazes, and unelaborate forms. This study shows the importance of considering both the antique collector! museum data and the archaeological data when characterizing the products of a potter. The preliminary field results suggest that intact waster dumps or kiln elements may be present beneath the fill on the western one-half of the site. Artifact density increased as the centerline of the site was approached from the east. The site may retain the potential to address research issues of kiln type/size and shop lay -out. The threatened portion of the site has been tested, and no further work is recommended under the Threatened Site Program. Any future compliance project, such as a road widening, should carefully evaluate the site, as well as the related domestic site north of the road. SKILLED POTTER, MUNDANE POTS: PRELIMINARY ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE ANTHONY UAECHER POTTERY SHOP (44FK550), FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Prepared for: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES, THREATENED SITES PROGRAM Prepared by: Christopher T. Espenshade Principal Investigator and ILinda Kennedy Submitted by: SKELLY and LOY, INC. Engineers -Consultants Monroeville/Harrisburg, PA Morgantown, WV SEPTEMBER 2002 L-1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Site Description In April 2002, Skelly and Loy, Inc. conducted archaeological field work at the former site of the Anthony Baecher pottery shop (44FK550). The site is located on Sulphur Springs Road, east of Winchester, Virginia (Figure 1). Baecher established the earthenware shop ca. 1862, and it continued in operation through 1889. Previous research had verified the shop to be Baecher's, based on the recovery of many sherds stamped or incised with the Baecher name (Comstock 1994). Anthony Baecher changed the spelling of his name many times, and was alternately known as Packer, Bacher, Backer, and Baecher. For this report, the Baecher spelling will be used, except in direct quotes or stamp descriptions. The site presently occupies portions of two properties, with a fence demarcating the property boundaries. The site vicinity in the western tract has been subjected to modern filling and is presently used by the landowner for the storage of equipment. On the eastern tract, the site occupies a former agricultural field that is in a combination of grasses, bushes, and briers (Photograph 1). The site fronts on Sulfur Springs Road and extends through clay pits to a small creek on the south. A metal culvert drains the site under Sulfur Springs Road. 1.2 Threats to the Site The site was examined under a contract from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Threatened Sites Program. The southern portions of the site are being eroded by creek flooding, and the shop portion of the site is being disturbed by uncontrolled excavations. Surface disturbances indicate that shallow excavation and collection are ongoing in the eastern portion of the site. The western portion of the site is apparently protected by modern fill, and no looting was evidenced on this side of the site. The research was funded by the Threatened Sites Program, and Mr. David Hazzard of the program assisted in the field work. In addition, Mr. Robert Jolley of the Winchester Regional Office of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) assisted in the background research and field work. Shenandoah pottery expert, Dr. Gene Comstock, also assisted in the field work. 1 J, 1 1.3 Limited Scope In researching landownership of the Baecher Pottery Shop Site, the county tax records showed the entire site as property of Helen Williams. Ms. Williams agreed to allow field research at the site only if it was conducted in a single day when her daughter (Helen Richmond) could be present. Accordingly, the field work had a limited scope. It was proposed that four 1.0 x 1.0 m (3.3 x 3.3 ft) units be excavated, with any remaining time devoted to additional units. However, four 1.0 x 1 .0 m (3.3 x 3.3 ft) units, a 3.0 x 0.5 m (9.8 x 1.6 ft) trench, and a 0.5x0.5m(1.6x1.6ft) unit were excavated. Prior to the commencement of field work, it was determined that Ms. Helen Williams owns only the western one-half of the site, which is now covered with modern fill. Mr. Hal Lahman owns the eastern portion of the site, and gave permission for the excavations. Excavations were only conducted on the eastern half of the site. The scope was modified in the field when no intact waster dumps or kiln remnants were encountered to produce a larger amount of material for analysis. In consultation with DHR staff, the decision was made to include previous collections in the analysis and report. These materials augmented those excavated by Skelly and Loy, Inc. 1.4 Format of Report Chapter 2 presents a review of the background for Anthony Baecher and his shop. It is !1 beyond the scope of the present investigations to duplicate or expand xpand upon the archival research presented by Comstock (1994). Instead, only a brief summary of Baecher's career and this particular shop are presented. A brief overview of his known pieces is offered. In addition, previous archaeological research at the site is discussed. Chapter 3 details the research methods. A consistent analytical scheme me was applied to all the collections, and Chapter 3 presents that scheme. Curation information is also provided. Chapter presents the field results. Stratigraphy and artifact content are discussed unit, and an interpretation of site formation processes is offered. Chapter 5 presents the results of the analysis. Each of the three collections has its own biases, and each was analyzed separately. An overall analysis was then undertaken. This chapter serves to characterize the products of Anthony Baecher and his assistants. n 2.0 BACKGROUND History of Anthony Wise Baecher The following overview of Baecher's career, as a potter in the United States, is largely taken from Comstock (1994:162-180, 360-364,437). Anthony Wise Baecher was born in the Bavarian town of Oberfatz in 1824. He learned his trade from his father, then emigrated to the United States, arriving in New York at the age of 24 (1848). Between 1848 and 1853, Baecher was employed by a number of pottery shops in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, including David Ditzler's Bonaughton pottery in Adams County, Pennsylvania and Jacob Lynn's shop in Mechanicstown (Thurmont), Frederick County, Maryland. At the age of 29, in 1853, Baecher moved to Winchester in Frederick County, Virginia. There he married Anna M. Sower on February 26, 1854. Securing a loan of $350.00 from John Wild in Frederick County, Virginia in 1859, Baecher bought 18.6 ha (46.0 ac) from the Singhas estate in 1862. To date, there is no evidence that Baecher was producing pottery in the Winchester area prior to 1862. However, it seems likely that he leased land and farmed in the area, as he secured the $350.00 loan in 1854 with personal property that included livestock and household furniture. Whether or not he produced pottery between 1853 and 1862 is a matter of conjecture. The 18.6 ha (46.0 ac) parcel, located along Sulphur Spring Road east of Winchester, included clay beds suitable for earthenware, and Baecher built a pottery workshop and kiln on the property. The remainder of the property was farmed. J.A. Baecher, grandson of Baecher, indicated that the shop and kiln were located between Sulphur Spring Road and Sulphur Spring Run, with a house, well, and barn located on the other side of the road. Throughout the 1860s, Baecher managed his farm, produced pottery from the Sulphur Spring shop, and in 1868 rented Jacob Lynn's pottery in Mechanicstown, Maryland. It was around this time that Baecher employed his brother-in-law Josiah Sower to manage the Sulphur Spring shop. Documentation regarding Baecher's business during the 1870s, suggests that now his wife and son were also working for the Sulphur Spring shop. Jacob Lynn, owner of Lynn's shop, died around 1876, after which his son, William Addison, took over as manager. Baecher may have continued to work at the Mechanicstown shop until it closed in 1882. It was while working at Mechanicstown, that Baecher met a fellow potter by the C: C name of Adam Kern. Following the closure of the Mechanicstown shop in 1882, Baecher and Kern formed a short-lived partnership, operating from the Sulphur Springs shop. Baecher continued to work independently until his death i. � 1889. Comstock has been able to construct a tentative chronology of Baecher's stamps. It should be noted that in some cases Baecher used more than one stamp at a time, and so there can be overlap. Baecher also changed the spelling of his name throughout his career (Table 1). Table 1. Baecher Stamps Documented by Comstock DATE SITUATION STAMP. Prior to 1862 Itinerant Potter Pacher incised 1862-1865 Virginia Shop AB stamp surrounded by rounded rectangle 1865-1882 Virginia Shop Backer. stamp 1875 Virginia Shop BAECHER WINCHESTER VA stamp 1882 Virginia Shop, in partnership with Adam Kern BACHER AND KERN WINCHESTER VA stamp 1887 Virginia Shop A W BA CHER WINCHESTER VA stamp 0 2.2 Known Baecher Pieces Rice and Stoudt (1929), Wiltshire (1975), Restuccia (1980), and Comstock (1994) have documented a broad range of surviving Baecher pieces. Comstock (1994:166-179) in particular provides an excellent survey of Baecher's work, and the reader is directed to that source for illustrations and further information. There is little doubt that Baecher was a highly skilled potter. Comstock (1994:164) observes: Of all the pottery produced in the Valley, Baecher's is the most likely to be characterized as a true representation of American folk art in spite of his resurgent rococo and strong German influences. 7 n Rice and Stoudt (1929:88) likewise were impressed with Baecher's potting, as they observed: A.W. Baecher was, without a doubt, the most skilled of the master potters of the Shenandoah Valley, and his influence is apparent in the later product of both S. Bell and Son, and the Eberly Pottery. Prior to coming to Virginia, Baecher produced several tours de force in Adams County, Pennsylvania. These were generally glazed with a dark manganese -rich glaze, and Comstock terms this Baecher's black period. Surviving pieces included ornate watchholders and sculptural groups featuring birds, flowers, and dogs. Little is known of his utilitarian wares produced in Pennsylvania. Baecher is known for three strengths: 1) animal forms; 2) extensive use of sprigging and three-dimensional modeling; and 3) excellent use of glaze and underglaze combinations. Baecher produced free-standing animals as toys and doorstops, but also included birds, dogs, and other animals on other pieces. He most commonly used birds to accent vessels, and Comstock (1994) refers to Baecher as the "Hummingbird Potter." Baecher also had a highly developed sense for sprigged decoration. His pitchers, planters, and wall pockets were often decorated with sprigged and applied flowers or leaves. Occasionally INBaecherwent beyond simple sprigging, and added to his pieces fully three-dimensional flowers with individually formed petals. Baecher worked almost exclusively in earthenware, and relied on a well developed pallette of glaze/underglaze combinations to make his products more aesthetically pleasing. Wiltshire (1975:19-20) comments on Baecher's skill with glazes: Baecher was probably the most expert at glazing of all the Valley potters... The classic Baecher glaze was one that was marbelized and mocha -like, capitalizing on the bleeding effect on a white slip ground. There was a greater tendency in Baecher's production toward a splotched effect similar to the Rockingham glaze. Surviving Baecher pieces attest to a wide variety of wonderfully executed underglaze techniques. He used manganese on a white slip background to create a fudge swirl effect. He used coppers to produce solid and dappled greens that in many ways presaged the later arts and crafts naturalistic glazes. Baecher was well accomplished in Rockingham style glazing, and continued to make the black pieces typical of his Adams County work. 1 8 The known whole pieces of Baecher's work include a wide variety of forms. These include: animal effigies and door stops; many pitcher forms with well executed handles, often with sprigged decoration; audacious vase forms that very commonly include sprigged flowers and applied birds; wall pockets with sprigged grapes and leaves; simple unglazed flower and seed pots; and more elaborate, glazed flower pots with distinctive double -fluted rims. A very few utilitarian pieces have survived, including jugs, churns, cups, and bowls. 2.3 Previous Research at the Site In 1981, Comstock arranged for a crew from the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program to conduct surface collections and excavations at the site. The Field Director was Michael L. Stewart and the crew included Jerry Haines and James Edmonds. The field notes are of variable data content, but it appears that 11 units were excavated at the site in 1981. The unit size is not specifically presented, but they may have measured 1.2 x 1.2 m (4.0 x 4.0 ft) each. IThe 1981 excavation was augmented by surface survey and metal detector survey by Comstock. In the notes, Stewart describes a unit as"probably where Dr. Comstock conducted a previous dig," and this suggests pre -1,081 excavations on the site. No intact kiln remains were located. It is not possible to place the 1981 unit grid relative to modern landmarks. 4 In his 1994 book, Comstock presented a sketch plan of the site. The plan did not include any unit locations, but gave general locations for the shop and four waster piles. Itis unclear if the 1981 excavations occurred in any of these waster dumps. Robert Jolley of the Winchester Regional Office of the Virginia DHR obtained a sample of pottery from the eastern tract of the property and completed an archaeological site identification form (44FK550) in 1998. Shortly before his visit, the landowner who owns the western half of the site had placed a series of large pipes as fence posts along the property line. He collected sherds from the backdirt of two or three of these postholes. His collection suggests that there were relatively dense waster deposits in this area of the site. A classified as stoneware were badly warped or collapsed, suggesting firing beyond the optimal temperature for the clay body. No classic stoneware sherdswith a bright gray body and orange - peel salt glazing were encountered. Rim sherds were categorized by ware, and glaze type/location. A standard set of measurements was taken for each rims herd: rim diameter, thickness, and height. In addition, rims were placed into form classes based on a morphological typology that evolved through the analysis (Figure 3: Types A -Q). It was recognized early in the analysis that there were only a few rim forms produced, but that there was a high degree of variability within a given form. A sample of rim sherd profiles was recorded. Base sherds were also categorized by ware and glaze type/location. The base diameter and base type were recorded. Base types 1-5 were defined (Figure 4); letter designations were used for rims and number designations were used for bases to maintain the separation between the categories. The exteriors of base sherds were examined for signs of production process (e.g., wire marks). A sample of base profiles was recorded. Lids were described by form, ware, and glaze. Diameters and decoration were also recorded. Handles were quantified by type (lug or strap) and manufacture technique. Glaze and ware were also recorded for all handles. Brick was counted and weighed by unit and stratum. Kiln furniture was counted and described. When evidence of stacking procedures was discovered on sherds, it was noted. 12 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Site Structure Any discussion of site structure is limited by the lack of good provenience data from the 1981 excavation units and surface collection. In addition, the effects of the ongoing looting cannot be quantified. Lastly, the placement of fill in the western portion of the site precluded investigation of that area in 2002. The density and distribution of artifacts suggest that Unit 6 and Unit 2 were located on or near two of the waster piles mapped by Comstock. The posthole collections were also in the waster deposit sampled by Unit 6. Given the quantityof brick and possible kiln rock in Unit 6, it appears that the kiln may have been situated west of the property line that bisects the site. The clay beds on the southern edge of the site contain suitable earthenware clays. In addition, the sunken, uneven surface of this area of the site is consistent with a quarried area. No features were discovered to suggest the location of the pug mill, shop, or kiln. The 2002 field results suggest that Comstock's map of the site is at best a sketch plan, and that significant changes have occurred to the site since the map was made. 6.2 Baecher's Day -to -Day Production The archaeological data are clear that Baecher was overwhelmingly producing simple utilitarian ware. His most common product was a crock with a 16.0-20.0 cm (6.3-7.9 in) rim diameter and interior lead glaze. Rims were not made with templates and varied greatly in thickness and height. Handles were hand -pulled, ratherthan extruded or molded. Baecher'sg laze and underglaze variations, other than simple lead glaze, occurred ata very low frequency. Seed pots and flowerpots, the latter with double -fluted rims and copper glazes, represent a strong minority of his work. Jugs were rare. Baecher used a variety of kiln furniture. Most common are fragments of incised setting tiles, but round doughnuts of sandy paste clay were also frequent. Small biscuits of sandy paste clay were also utilized to level pieces in the kiln. Failures and firing shadows on successfully fired pieces suggest that crocks were stacked upright, with the rim of thebottom crock supporting the base of 39 J1 the top crock. With the majority of pieces glazed on theinterior only, it is logical that most pieces would have been fired in the upright position. No certain saggars were recovered. In 1980, Restuccia (1980:7) suggested that "perhaps the excavation conducted by Dr. H.E. Comstock in Winchester of the Baecher kiln site will provide additional insight into the unique features of more of Baecher's work." Comstock's collections, as well as those by Jolley and by Skelly and Loy, Inc., indeed have expanded our knowledge of Baecher's production. However, the results contrast strongly with the images of Baecher provided by Comstock (1994), Restuccia (1980), Rice and Stoudt (1929), and Wiltshire (1975). By the time Baecher opened his Frederick County, Virginia shop, there was strong competition in the Valley from stoneware potters (Comstock 1994; Russ 1999). Stoneware offered durability and nonporosity, and lacked the health risks associated with lead -glazing. To compete, an earthenware potter needed to eitherproduce highly traditional pieces fitting the needs of local folk foodways and display, to make his wares very inexpensively, or to define a new niche for his wares. The first two options are in opposition. Highly ornate earthenware with complex underglaze decoration cannot be produced inexpensively. Likewise, a potter turning hundreds of pieces a day could not spend time on elaborate decoration or timely glazing schemes. Table 5 presents price data for Valley earthenware and stoneware in the late nineteenth century. The data from 1874-1875 suggest that Baecher was able to sell his earthenware (10 cents per gallon) at a lower price than Eberly was selling stoneware (16.6 cents per gallon). Similarly, in 1889-1890, the E. Suter Steam Pottery was selling earthenware for 7.0-9.0 cents per gallon, while J. Eberly & Company was selling stoneware for 12.5 cents per gallon. During Baecher's career in Frederick County, there was never a large margin between the prices of stoneware and earthenware, and the successful potter needed to keep costs to a minimum, Table 5. 1 1 wQ lu, % vailun rieces, onenanaoan vaiiey Potter , j : -. Ware Anthony Beecher Earthenware 1875 10.0 cents Samuel Bell Stoneware 1851 33.3 cents (jars) 20.0 cents (jugs) Eberly Stoneware 1874 16.6 cents John Sonner Stoneware 1884 25.0 cents 40 r Table 5. Prices for One Gallon Pieces, Shenandoah Valley (Continued) Potter,ware' - at', Emanuel Emanuel Suter Earthenware Unknown Stoneware �I rESutelr nner y & Company ® Steam Pottery Stoneware Stoneware Earthenware Unknown 1889 1890 Cost 12.5 cents 25.0 cents 12.5 cents 12.5 cents 7.0 cents (single -glazed) 9.0 cents (double -glazed) Which solution did Baecher choose? Baecher simplified his bulk product to an inexpensive ware, yet continued to make a few elaborate pieces for special needs. His day-to-day product was produced in a few basic forms. Little effort was expended on standardizing rims, and bases were rarely elaborated. Rims were simplified versions of earlier more decorative forms (contrast the Type A crock rims of Baecher with the triple -beaded, pan rims of Andrew Pitman [Park et al. 2001]). Handles were pulled, not extruded or molded, again suggesting a decline from the earlier folk tradition. Glazing was straightforward and unimaginative (lead -glazed interiors) on most of his ware, and the beaded shoulders that were present in earlier earthenware (e.g., Comstock 1994: Figures 4.79 and 5.18) were reduced to a suggestion created by 1-3 incised lines. Slip -trailed decoration and sgraffito were not utilized. There was great variability in vessel thickness within any given form/size class. There was extremely limited evidence in the recovered artifacts of the glaze expertise noted by Comstock (1994) and Wiltshire (1975). Day-to-day, Baecher and his associates quickly produced in bulk a functional but aesthetically mediocre product. His ware consisted of overwhelmingly simplified or streamlined versions of more traditional forms. Against this backdrop of cost effective, bulk production, Baecher continued to produce a very limited number of more elaborate pieces. When he so desired, Baecher was fully capable of producing tours de force with elaborate vessel forms, three dimensional decoration, and complex underglaze/glaze effects. It is not possible to quantify his variety of production, but the wasters suggestthat Baecherwas overwhelmingly concerned with basic, utilitarian pieces. The exceptions are striking, but are, nonetheless, exceptions. 41 Baecher also identified a new niche and produced ware to fill this niche. In the later portions of the nineteenth century, the population was becoming increasingly urban and the concepts of yard and decorative gardens were evolving. As the demand for classic rural forms was being undercut by glass containers, canned foods, industrial stoneware, and the disappearance of the family milk cow, Baecher increasingly turned to making flowergarden pieces. These included simple unglazed seed pots and flowerpots, and more decorative flowerpots, vases, and wall pockets. Baecher was not alone in filling this niche, as John Bell, John Bowman, James Mackey, Solomon Bell, Samuel Bell & Sons, the Eberlys, and the Suter New Erection Steam Pottery all produced garden pieces in earthenware (Comstock 1994). A September 1875 Baecher invoice (Comstock 1994:362-363) for $21.97 of pottery included three hanging baskets (totaling $1.20), 20 flowerpots (totaling $2.55), 12 unglazed flowerpots (totaling $0.96), 12 5 -inch flowerpots (totaling $0.48), and 12 2 -inch seed pots (totaling $0.48). If this invoice is representative, flower garden ware may have accounted for approximately one-fourth of Baecher's income late in his career. By producing inexpensive bulk ware, by exploiting the new flower garden market, and by continuing to make the occasional tourde force, Baecher was able to continue making earthenware long after most earthenware potters had folded. From this perspective, it appears that Baecher had keen business skills to match his excellent potting abilities. 6.3 Data Set Biases Antique and material cultural experts may disdain the broken, dirty fragments that comprise archaeological samples. However, characterizing the work of a potter from surviving, whole pieces runs the risk of severe bias. Elaborate, high quality pieces are more likely to have been treated as heirlooms, and are more likely to have survived. Day-to-day, utilitarian pottery ran the risk of breakage during use and probably was only rarely considered worthy of protection. Fancy pieces were also more likely to have been marked than utilitarian ware. There can be little question that a characterization based on whole pieces will be biased toward the unusual. The archaeological record is also biased. First, most archaeological work is based on sampling, and rare items may not be represented in the sample. Second, the archaeological samples from production sites are generally comprised of failures or wasters. A sample of wasters will be biased toward the more mundane items because potters would have taken greater care in the production of the unique or elaborate pieces than in the making of everyday crocks. 5% Archaeological samples can characterize the day-to-day products of a potter, but may not capture the full range of items made at the shop. The above generalizations certainly hold for Baecher. Characterizations by Wiltshire (1975), Restuccia (1980), and Comstock (1994) emphasize Baecher's figures and elaborately decorated pieces. They stress Baecher's skill in using applied decoration. They emphasize the many creative glaze effects mastered by Baecher. Lacking any other data, the reader of Comstock, Restuccia, or Wiltshire might think that Baecher was predominately the maker of elaborate art pottery. On the archaeological side, the samples are overwhelmingly simple crocks. There is extremely limited variability in glazes, and there is almost no evidence of applied decoration. From the archaeological perspective, there are no indications of the extreme skill and creativity of Baecher. Instead, his work is similar to the product of many farmer -potters throughout the eastern United States. Whole vessel data and archaeological information, taken together, complement each other, and combined provide a more comprehensive is P picture of the works of Baecher. Although he was highly skilled and creative, his bread-and-butter products were basic, simple crocks. His high output of utilitarian ware allowed him the luxury of producing more elaborate, less utilitarian pieces, albeit on a very limited scale. 6.4 Possible Future Work It is axiomatic of archaeological research that you never know what you will find. At first glance, the detailed site plan presented in Comstock suggested four distinct waster dumps and the likely kiln location could be found and sampled. Instead, the character of the site has changed since Comstock's field work, and it is no longer possible to locate individual waster dumps. The present project was undertaken to mitigate the damage to the site from uncontrolled excavations and erosion. An extensive collection from the site has been analyzed, and sufficient units were excavated on the eastern portion of the site to suggest that this portion of the site probably does not contain intact waster dumps or kiln remnants. The greatest research potential may be in the western portion of the site, which is protected from uncontrolled excavations and erosion by the thick modern fill over the historic deposits. No further excavations are recommended under the Threatened Sites Program. However, should future projects threaten the site, additional evaluation of the of the site (and Baecher's home site north of the road) is recommended. 43 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS VJ HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORM File no. 3q_1 35 Negative no(s). 11680 City/Town/Village/Hamlet RURAL COW17 County FREDERICK Street address or route number Rt. 655 U.S.G.S. Quad STEPHENSON Historic name Common name Abandoned Barn, Rt. 655 Present use ;11 !ANn0Nf D Original use AGRICUr CURAL 1. Construction Materials yvood frame ;E]] brick bond: 0 English ❑ Flemish ❑ --course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other ❑ stone ❑ raised basement ❑ random nubble side (church) ❑ coursed nubble ❑ asymmetrical ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ rock -faced ❑ log: ❑ hipped ❑ squared ❑ unsquared notching. ❑ mansard ❑ V -notch ❑ half dovetail ❑ saddle ❑ full dovetail ❑ square ❑ diamond ❑ concrete block ❑ parapet? ❑ terra cotta ❑ roof not visible ❑ steel frame ❑ other 2. Cladding Material ❑ weatherboard vertical siding ❑ oard & batten ❑ shingle: ❑ wood ❑ asbestos 0 asphalt ❑ bricktex ❑ other �"µJ ` �► w& ., �''tlirlrAi�"F'aste MarI� T1 r�T' ❑ composition siding ❑ stucco ❑ aluminum or vinyl siding ❑ cast iron ❑ sheet metal ❑ enameled metal ❑ glass Building Style Vernacular Buildine Dates) ca. 1890--1910 3. Stories (number) R'fow basement ❑ raised basement 4. Bays (number): front side (church) ❑ symmetrical ❑ asymmetrical 5. Roof Type ❑ shed ❑ hipped part? ❑ pyramidal? gable ❑ mansard pediment? ❑ false mansard ❑ parapet? ❑ gambrel ❑ clipped end? ❑ flat ❑ cross gable? ❑ parapet? ❑ central front gable? ❑ roof not visible ❑ other 6. Roofing Material ❑ shingle ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) ❑ wood standing seam ❑ corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ the ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ glazed ❑ slate ❑ not visible 7. Dormers (number): front side ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed El alppc 8. Primary Porch style stories levels materials description and decorative details bays 9. General supplementary, description and decoration: Barn has beenpartially burned in the west end; stone foundation; sawn timber frame w/ nails & some mortice & tenon. 10. Major additions and alterations: 11. Outbuildings: Stone .foundation (approx 8'x6') about 150 ft. east of barn. 12. Landscape Features: Very overgrown. 13. Significance: Fxample of a late 19th to early 20th century barn. There was probably once a dwelling nearby associated with it. Surveyed by: M. KALBIAN & J. PERKINS Date. 3/92 / yl, VIRGINIA I File Flo 34-416 _ DIVISION OF HiS TORIC LANDMARKS Nc>ativ no(s). 9704 _� «'Yhyp. HISTORIC DISTRICT/ BRIEF SURVEY FORM _ ('ity,/ linvn/ Village/ Hamlet - ---rural county- - — cotnnv Frederick -- -- 5lieel acldicss or roule number Route 656 11.5.(1 ,S. (load Stephenson ffistoric'namc Common name Gaylord Dawson House PrVsrnf use residential Building.stylc vernacular 01iginaluse resid ntiat BuitdingDate(s) C. 1880--1910, c. 1950--1970 1 I, Conso uction Materials dwood frame ❑ brick ' bond: ❑ English ❑ Flemish ❑--cour;seAmerican [],stretcher ❑ other ❑ ;~tone ❑ random rubble ❑ coursed ruhhlc ❑ ashlar ❑ (It essed ❑ ruck -faced 13 loe: Cl sclnarcd notching. Cl V -notch ❑ saddle ❑ stluare ❑ concrete block ❑ terra cotta ❑ steel franc [Jollier ._--- 2. ('Lidding Molcrial ❑ wc;uhcrho;u-d ❑ tcrlical sitting U hoalld & hatters ❑ shingle: ❑ wood ❑ asbestos ❑ atilthalt ❑ bricklex ❑ other --- ❑ unsyuarcd I-) h.111 dovetail ❑ Dull (Imetail ❑ diamond ❑ eonnnsitiort sidim, ❑'.stucco y L aluntinurn or vinyl siding ❑ cast iron ❑ sheet mctill ❑ enameled metal ❑ glass ?. ries (numhcr) 2 St basementsplit level raised basement 4. B�yY s (number): front side (church) ®'symmetrical ❑ asymmetrical 5. Roof Type ❑ shed parapet? gaffe ❑ pedirnenl? ❑ parapet? ❑ clipped cad? ❑ cross gahle? ❑ (rntral front gahle? [Jolliet - 6. ofher6. Rooling Material ❑ hipped ❑ pyramidal') ❑ mansard ❑ false mansard ❑ garnbrcl ❑ Ilat ❑ parapet? ❑ rool not visihic ❑ shingle ❑ Composition ('Isphttlt irsbestos, etc.) �/❑ wood E m tat standing scam ❑ cornu eat(•d ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ file ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ slate IJ not visible -7. VDormers (numhel):--front .-side ❑ gable ❑ pediment's ❑ .shed ❑ hipped ❑ glvcd S. Primary Porch stvlc .__Vernacular Folic Victorian Stories .- ...... - _. ... — - levels full height bays 3 materials woo_d____�. description and decorative details Turned -spindle c-o.LWnrts, turned spindle _brackets in 9. General supplementary description and decoration: 2/2 windows; 3 - light transom over door; central brick flue. II1. Major ad(litions and alterations: New siding, new foundation; rear 2 -story ell w/ enclosed 2 -story porches. 11 (hltbuildings: Frame outhouse, meathouse, garage, 2 storage shed>s; barn. 12. Lart.d..sc.. - __.._.... ape Fcittures: Mature trees; 2 -rail and wire fence 13. Sign ihcarice: One of the older houses on this route. survcicd by: Ihdt: P.. Rhinehart, L. Giles 6/89 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Me sK Zj 'p t -Ink, 4 ov Iffin Ora / v uc�il�ali fl} f11 DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS Neeativeno- n s . 111679 HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORM ty/Town/Village/Hamlet RURAL COLWrY County FPEDERICK eet address or route number Off Rt. 655 U.S.G.S. Quad STEPHENSON storicname John Wilt (Lake's Atlas) Commonname Wilt -Dunn -Arnold House esent use RESIDI;NI'IA1. Budding Style Vernacular Federal iginal use RESIDEIv"rIAL, Building Date(s) ca. 1810-1830, later 19th C. Construction Materials 3.St es (number) 2 additions. low basement O raised basement wood frame heavy timber frame O brick 4. s (number): front 3 side (church) bond: ❑ English symmetrical ❑ asymmetrical O Flemish ❑ _--course American 5. Roof Type O stretcher ❑ shed O hipped O other parapet? O pyramidal? O stone able O mansard O random rubble ��/ E pediment? ❑ false mansard O coursed rubble O parapet? ❑ gambrel O ashlar O dressed ❑ clipped end? O flat ❑ rock -faced O cross gable? O parapet? log: O central front gable? O roof not visible LJ squared ❑ unsquared O other fno ching. -notch ❑ half dovetail 6. Roofing Material ❑ saddle ❑ full dovetail ❑ square O diamond O shingle 3 concrete block ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) 3 terra cotta C3 wood 3 steel frame 10metal 3 other andin8 searn corrugated O pressed tin (simulated shingles) Cladding Material ❑ the O pantile ❑ flat ❑ glazed weatherboard ❑ composition siding O slate O vertical siding O stucco ❑ not visible O board & batten O aluminum or vinyl siding O shingle: O cast iron 7. Dormers (number): front side O wood O sheet metal O gable ❑ pediment? O asbestos ❑ enameled metal O shed ❑ asphalt ❑ glass ❑ hipped O bricktex ❑ other 8. Primary Porch style Folk Victorian stories I - levels full height bays 1 r 0J wood - materials t descri��on and ddecorative detail Turn spin les; sawn rackets; concrete block piers below. 1 � � 9. General supplementary description and decorator 3 -light tran- som over door; 6/6 windows; 2 4 -light attic windows in! gable end; 2 int. end brick chimneys; stone foundation;. cornerboards; plain friezeboard; wooden grills over basement front; basement ently on n. end; boxed cornice; suggested gable end returns;! rF•ar 2-storywin w central brick chimne batten doors. i':i:�I' Ili 10. rear 2 -story wing; Victorian trim. ,I Lh If. Outbuildings: I �i •II II IjI �I; t 1 Frame barn. t '; •�, I I . ti�� l � �f illi <t 12. Landscape Features: Sits on top of hill off Rt. 655. Modern modular ;,I�III` IIIhII I;' hf hcme directly next to house. A0, �! 13. Significance: Front of house is early 19th century log & was probablyy remodeled after Civil War when rear r' 2 -story wing & Victorian trim was added. Despite poor repair house is in fairly original condition. One of few examples of this style in area. .«-�.: Surveyed by: M. KALBIAN & J.PERKINS Dom' 3/92 3.: i 35 I Date Z, File No. Name Town �al ( County Photographer Contents V 1�-7 VIRGINIA Fde no. 34- 1130 DIVISION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS I Ne alive n s. 11679 HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF SURVEY FORM y�Town/ VillagelHan-Jet RURAL C-C',J'TY County FREDERICK xt address or route number Rt. 655 U.S.G.S. Quad WINCHESTER toricname G.W. Smith (Lake's Atlas) Commonname Carper -Cunningham House sent use RESIDENTIAL Building Style Vernacular hall/parlor oinal use RESIDENTIAL Building Dates) ca.1890-1910, ca.1990 Construction Materials ood frame D9, ick bond: ❑ English ❑ Flemish ❑ --course American ❑ stretcher ❑ other ❑ stone ❑ random rubble ❑ coursed rubble ❑ ashlar ❑ dressed ❑ rock -faced CD log: ❑ squared notching. ❑ V -notch U saddle ❑ square 3 concrete block 3 terra cotta 7 steel frame 3 other ❑ unsquared ❑ half dovetail CJ NJ dovetail ❑ diamond Cladding Material ❑ weatherboard ❑ composition siding ❑ vertical siding Cl stucco ❑ board & batten aluminum or vinyl siding ❑ shingle: t iron ❑ wood ❑ sheet metal ❑ asbestos ❑ enameled metal ❑ asphalt ❑ glass ❑ bricktex ❑ other pn 3.� Stories (number) 2 low basement .-i i let,el 'raised basement f 4. Bays (number): front side (church) ❑ symmetrical symmetrical trical 5. Roof Type ❑�shl ❑ hi p 9 ❑ pyramidal? gable ❑ mansard pediment? ❑ false mansard ❑ parapet? ❑ gambrel ❑ clipped end? ❑ flat ❑ cross gable? ❑ parapet? ❑ central front gable? ❑ roof not visible ❑ other 6. Roofing Material Cl shingle ❑ composition (asphalt, asbestos, etc.) ❑ wood metal Landing seam • corrugated ❑ pressed tin (simulated shingles) ❑ the ❑ pantile ❑ flat ❑ Sly ❑ slate ❑ not visible 7. Dormers (number): front side ❑ gable ❑ pediment? ❑ shed ❑ hipped 8. Primary Porch style vernacular Folk Victorian stories 1 levek full height bays materials wand descri tion and decorative details Tuned spindles; plain balusters,- side stair: ppor e on concrete Block piers. 9. General sup lementarydescription and decoration: Formed concrete' foundation; �/2 windows; central brick flue; bulkhead basement entry on east side; 2 -light basement windows; :rear 1 -story shed -roofed wing w/ ext. end flue & 6/6 10. Major win ows; idin c a in Ger- man j man lap sidin . New siding; new louvered s u ers. 11. Outbuildings: New shed; new concrete block garage. 12. Landscape Features: Sits on a slope. 13. Significance: One of the few turn -of -the -century houses on this road. SurveyedbyM.KAL.BIAN & J.A.H. PERKINS Date: 3/92 11 I Date File No. Name Town County Photo-rapher Contents U 0 1 LEMM aOMNG OF LOTS REZONING LOTS RA RESIDENTIAL & AGRICULTURAL) M2 SINGLE—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) M1 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) B2 (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Jf()) / 1 1 -- 65=A�72 65—A-13Bx 6A -A-129 65—A -86A fr� 691A 1 65—A-95 64—A-158 / , o 65—A -13A — y ' s � mg a "° r r O 65—A-80\ , 1 *� 65—A �t n 65—A-80 _ 94 STONEWALL DIST. 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ■ °^ �o � �8 C N 3: N I L NN (oCfl � U a � 'E � CO c 011. W cn.�'��® J > `- `- O 41 U (D U O E O U) .. Wa� �p ZW a L5 H W J Ld L3 z Z Z u W SURVEY: C.I.: NA NONE (1000 DRAWN BY: RD 5001 SCALE: 1"=500 65 -A -103A j� / - SHEET: I \ ` Scab =[500 f JOB NO.: 0403007 DATE: 08/23/05 Ex.1