HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 12-07-94 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
DECEMBER 7, 1994
7:06 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes of October 19 and November 2, 1994 .............. A
2) Bimonthly Report .................................... P o R
3) Committee Reports .................................... C
4) Citizen Comments ..................................... D
5) Proposed Maintenance Hanger/Office Space At The Winchester Regional Airport.
(Mr. Wyatt) .........................................E
6) Subdivision Application #012-94 of Lenoir City Company. This property is located at
the end of McGhee Road in the Stonewall Industrial Park and is identified with PINS 43-
19-2- and 43-19-43 in the Gainesboro District.
(Mr. Miller) ......................................... F
7) Willis White Request for a subdivision variance.
(Mr. Miller) ......................................... G
8) Master Development Plan #007-94 of Saratoga Meadows for 42 single family detached
traditional housing units. This property is located on the south side of Senseny Road
(Route 657), approximately 150 feet west of Greenwood Road (Route 656). This
property is identified as PINS 55-A-195 & 54 -A -125A, and is located in the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
(Mr. Wyatt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H
2
9) Master Development Plan #008-94 of Westminster Canterbury for the construction of six
new residential cottages. The property is located on Westminster Canterbury Drive off
of Route 522. This property is identified with PINS 53 -A -63A; 53-A-6313; 53-4-3-J; 53-
A-5213, and is located in the Gainesboro District.
(Mr. Lawrence) ....................................... I
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10) Rezoning Application #008-94 of James Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres from RP
(Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General). The directions to this property are
as follows: From Interstate 81 approximately .75 miles east of the City of Winchester,
turn left onto Custer Avenue, property is located at the intersection of Custer Avenue and
Pembridge Road. This property is identified with PINS 64A -4-20A; 64A -4-10A; 64A-
10 -B and is located in the Shawnee District.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................ J
11) Rezoning Application #009-94 of Valley Mill Estates to rezone 17.8+ acres from RA
(Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). The directions to this property are as
follows: North of Valley Mill Road (Route 659), proceed 3/4 mile East of Greenwood
Road (Route 656). This property is identified with PINS 55-A-176 & 55-A-17613 in the
Shawnee District.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................K
OTHER ITEMS
12) Comprehensive Plan Update.
(Mr. Tierney) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L
MISCELLANEOUS
13) Informal Discussion with Linden Unger Regarding a Possible Rezoning.
(Mr. Tierney) ....................................... M
14) Other.............................................N
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
October 19, 1994.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman;
S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek
District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District;
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District;
Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District;
George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison.
Planning Staff present: W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C.
Tierney, Deputy Planning Director.
ABSENT: John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Vincent DiBenedetto;
Winchester City Liaison
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's
information.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plan - 10/10/94 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CP&PS reviewed the Corridor Road Plan
which will become part of the Comprehensive Plan. She said that they also discussed a proposed
use for Gore School.
2
Economic Development Commission
Mr. Romine reported that the EDC received a discussion from a Dowell J.
Howard representative concerning technical high schools. Mr. Romine said there is interest in
establishing one in this area.
SUBDIVISIONS:
Subdivision Application #007-94 of Harry Stimpson to subdivide 14.9277 acres for a
proposed motel. This property is identified as PIN 85-A-146 and 146A and is located on
the west side of Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012), south of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), East of the
Town of Stephens City
Mr. Miller said that the proposed subdivision of 1.5152 acres from a larger tract
of 14.9304 acres meets all the requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. He said
that the staff is recommending that the master plan requirement be waived.
The Commissioners questioned whether there would be enough room on a one and
a half acre parcel to place a motel and parking.
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G.W. Clifford & Associates was present to
represent this application. Mr. Gyurisin said that the site is adequate to handle the proposed 70 -
unit motel with on-site parking.
The Commission expressed concern that with all the development along Route
641, and now at Route 1012, there was going to be a need for a road south of the Route 277
corridor, to serve Ridgefield, The Meadows, and the Stephens Ridge subdivisions. They did not
have a problem with this particular proposal, because there was a traffic light to control traffic,
however, they felt that some egress and ingress was needed for people back in that area.
There were no citizen comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve Subdivision Application #007-94 of Harry Stimpson /too subdivide 14.9277 acres for a
proposed motel on the west side of Town Run Lalac kXXkJUte i\ii2) 111 Lhe %_/pequon lviagisteriQi
District.
3
Subdivision Application #008-94 of C. Douglas Adams to subdivide 9.552 acres for a
proposed office building located in the Shawnee District and identified as PIN #64 -A -
45G_ This property is located on the north side of Airport Road (Rt. 645), West of the
Winchester Regional Airport, and adjacent to Project Hope_
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller said that the proposed use is a child services center.
Mr. Sam Sabbaugh, President of the Children's Services of Virginia, explained
that a private child -placing agency places children who need to be away from their own homes
into therapeutic foster homes. He said that families who are interested in working with a needy
child apply to his agency and if the family has the proper credentials, the child services center
places the child with the family. Mr. Sabbaugh said that the Children's Services of Virginia
contracts through public agencies, such as the Department of Social Services or the courts, they
obtain custody of the child, and then place the child in one of their many foster homes
throughout Virginia. He said that their office would be occupied by social workers,
administrators, and therapists (6-8 people) who will work with the children and the families.
Mr. Sabbaugh added that no children would stay at this location.
Mr. Sabbaugh also explained that they are licensed by the State of Virginia to
operate throughout Virginia and they will serve the entire commonwealth, however, the families
are situated within a 100 miles radius.
The Planning Commission felt this subdivision was in conformance with the
approved master plan for the Airport Business Center and felt that the request met all the
requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve Subdivision Application #008-94 of C. Douglas Adams for the subdivision of a 1.500
acre parcel off a 9.552 acre tract for the establishment of a child services center.
DISCUSSION REGARDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN FLOOD PLAINS
Mr. Miller said that on May 19, 1994, Mr. William A. Kalberer, a FEMA
inspector, identified a potential violation on the North South Skirmish Association's (NSSA) site.
He said that Mr. Kalberer identified recreational vehicles within the floodplain portion of the
property and Mr. Kalberer was also informed that some of the recreational vehicles remain in
the floodplain area for extended periods of time.
4
Mr. Miller said that Frederick County amended its Zoning Ordinance on August
12, 1992 to ensure compliance with FEMA regulations and Section 165-106F of the ordinance
prohibits recreational vehicles within floodplain districts. Mr. Miller said that these amendments
were necessary to enable Frederick County to participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program.
Mr. Miller stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee
(DRRS) discussed this issue and considered two options. The first option was to enforce the
current requirements and the second option would allow recreational vehicles provided that
certain performance standards were met. Those conditions were: 1) the recreational vehicle is
fully licensed; 2) the recreational vehicle is installed on wheels and ready for highway use; 3)
the recreational vehicle is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security
devices; 4) the recreational vehicle has no permanently attached additions.
The Commissioners felt that the NSSA was a tremendous resource to the County
for tourism and economic development. As long as the amendment followed State regulations,
they were interested in accommodating this organization. Chairman Golladay instructed the staff
to proceed with advertising the amendment for the Commission's next public hearing.
REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE ROUTE 55 AS A
VIRGINIA BYWAY
Mr. Tierney presented a letter and supporting materials from John R. Davy, Jr.,
of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, to John R. Riley, Jr., Frederick County
Administrator, requesting the County's support for the proposal to designate Route 55 as a
Virginia Byway.
Although there were no restrictions attached to designating a scenic byway, the
Commission felt that it would be used by special interest groups as an argument to prevent
certain proposais involving the highway. The Commission also pointed out that Route 55 was
a heavily traveled road and they were concerned about encouraging tourism along the road for
safety reasons.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does not endorse the
proposal to designate Route 55 as a Virginia Byway.
5
PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY USE OF GORE SCHOOL
Mr. Tierney said that the Board of Supervisors has received a bid for the sale of
Gore School which contains a caveat that the purchaser be permitted to convert the building to
multi -family housing. He said that the Board asked the staff to look into what would be involved
if this offer were to be accepted.
Mr. Tierney said that in light of specific statements in the Comprehensive Plan,
it was the staff's opinion that multifamily housing would not be appropriate for the school or for
the Gore area in general. He said that first, there is no public sewer or water supply to
accommodate such a use and second, rezoning to RP (Residential Performance) in the absence
of public facilities would contradict established policies. He stated that there is language in the
Comprehensive Plan stating that appropriate business uses would be acceptable and the staff feels
that a B2 (Business General) use would be more appropriate than multifamily housing.
The Commission felt that the $50,000.00 that the County would receive for the
sale of the school would not compensate for the consequences of violating the Comprehensive
Plan and the precedent situation that would be set.
Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Morris,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does not endorse the
rezoning the Gore School from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to
accommodate multi -family use because it would
Plan.
The vote on this resolution was as follows:
violate policies set forth in the Comprehensive
YES (DO NOT ENDORSE MULTI -FAMILY USE OF GORE SCHOOLS DeHaven,
Morris, Thomas, Romine, Wilson, Copenhaver, Light, Stone
NO: Shickle, Golladay
(Mr. Marker was absent)
ADJOURNMENT
p.m.
C1
No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:00
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
November 2, 1994.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman;
John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver,
Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall
District; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee
District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon
District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison;
and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison.
Planning Staffpresent: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; W. Wayne
Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director.
ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 1994
The first order of business was the consideration of minutes. Upon motion made
by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of September 21, 1994 were
unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's
information.
2
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development, Review & Rggulations Subcommittee - 10/27 Mtg=
Mr. Thomas reported that the DR&RS began discussions on amendments
concerning sign regulations. He said that the majority of the meeting, however, was used to
discuss vested rights. Mr. Thomas said that the DR&RS would like to be able to present policy
standards on vested rights for the Planning Commission to follow for rezonings and master
development plans.
Sanitation Authority
Mrs. Copenhaver said that she was not able to attend the meeting, however,
meeting minutes reflect that the Parkins Mill expansion is continuing, comments have been
received from Environmental Quality for the sewer on Route 522, and bids, easement plats, and
letters to property owners are being prepared.
Battlefield Task Force
Mr. Watkins reported that the first battlefield forum was held on October 22 and
approximately 24 people attended. Mr. Watkins said that the participants discussed goals,
strategies, and developed some ideas. The Task Force will conduct another public forum on
November 12 at Armel School from 1:00 - 5:00 p.m.
LIAISON APPOINTMENTS
Chairman Golladay appointed Richard Shickle as the Planning Commission's
liaison to the Winchester City Planning Commission and Robert Morris as the Planning
Commission's liaison to the Historic Resources Advisory Board.
SUBDIVISIONS
Subdivision Application #009-94 of Hampton Chase, Section 1, to subdivide 12.02 acres
for proposed single-family housing. This property is located adjacent to the City of
Winchester and the Frederick County boundary line, just north of Battle Avenue and is
identified as PIN 54-A-94 in the Stonewall District.
i�
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller said that this portion of the Hampton Chase proposal was previously
planned for townhouses, but was converted to 36 zero lot line single-family residences. Mr.
Miller also stated that Lots 36 through 41 on the northwest side of this section have a 50' zoning
buffer because they back up against B2 zoning. He said that the plats for this section will need
to clearly show this and indicate that it is an area where no structures can be placed.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with the engineering firm of G. W. Clifford &
Associates, and Mr. David Holliday, the developer, were present to represent this application.
The Commission had no problems with the subdivision and felt it was in
conformance with the approved revised master plan. Commissioners felt, however, that the
appropriate deed and plat restrictions should be carried out to indicate the 50' setback for
building construction to accommodate the zoning buffer.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Stone,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve Subdivision Application #1009-94 of Hampton Chase, Section I, to subdivide 12.02 acres
for 36 zero lot line single-family residences with the stipulation that appropriate notifications be
placed on the deeds and plats for Lots 36 through 41 to indicate the 50' building restriction
setback line to accommodate the B2 buffer line.
Subdivision Application #010-94 of Negley Construction, Inc. to subdivide 5.97 acres for
commercial use. This property is located behind the Days Inn on Welltown Road (Rt.
661) and is identified as PIN 43-A-52 and 52B in the Stonewall District_
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller said that no master plan is in existence for this project, and waiver of
that requirement is recommended. He said that the developer of this project will be responsible
for completing a maintenance agreement between the owner of the property and the county as
to where the stormwater detention facility should be located. Mr. Miller said that this must be
accomplished before the street can be taken into the secondary road system.
Mr. Paul Negley, the property owner, was present to answer questions from the
Commission.
The Commission had no problems with the subdivision and felt that all ordinance
requirements had been met.
0
Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Subdivision Application #010-94 of Negley Construction, Inc. to
subdivide 5.97 acres for commercial use with the condition that all review agency comments are
adequately addressed.
EXTENSION OF SEWER TO ARTHUR FULTON PROPERTY
Mr. Tierney said that the Board of Supervisors plans to consider Mr. Arthur
Fulton's request for permission to extend sewer to his property at the corner of Routes 635 and
277 at their November 9 meeting. He said that the Planning Commission informally discussed
this item at their meeting of September 21.
Mr. Tierney said that the staff has been in touch with the Sanitation Authority and
they have no problem with residences along Route 636 hooking into a two-inch line, assuming
that county policies permit it; however, there would be an expense involved on the part of the
individuals involved with hooking into the line. He said that each residence would have to pay
for the installation of a line from their residence to the two-inch main, a grinder pump, and a
tap fee. Mr. Tierney said that the Health Department will not allow residential hookups to a
pressurized line which is under four inches in diameter unless the sewage first goes through a
grinder pump.
The Commissioners were of the opinion that the Fulton tract should be permitted
to hook into public sewer because the tract was located adjacent to the Sewer and Water Service
Area boundary and because the property was zoned for industrial use. However, they did feel
the line should not be extended to serve only one customer, especially since so many people in
this area were experiencing failing septic systems. The Commission felt that the line should also
be extended to those residences along Route 277 and Route 636 that need it. Some
Commissioners felt that a two-inch force main with grinder pumps was a short -cited approach
to extending sewer to an area. They did not want the citizens in that area to bear the increased
costs of a grinder pump simply because the county did not choose to install a three or four inch
line.
The staff pointed out that the county should provide enough capacity to make the
project economically feasible, without creating excess capacity to allow for additional
development.
There were no citizen comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romme,
5
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the extension of the
Sewer and Water Service Area to the Fulton property, including the surrounding residences along
Route 277 and Route 636 with failing septic systems; and that after Board endorsement of the
extension, they recommended that this proposal go back to the Comprehensive Plans and
Programs Subcommittee to determine parameters and to work out the technical and cost aspects.
(Mr. Wilson was absent.)
Conditional Use Permit #009-94 of Robin G_ Dassler for a dog kennel. This property is
located on Northwestern Pike (Route 50 West) and is identified as PIN 28-A-155 in the
Gainesboro District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller said that dog kennels are permitted in the RA (Rural Areas) zoning
District with an approved conditional use permit. He said that the applicant has advised the staff
that the kennel will be used only for housing and breeding dogs that belong to her. He said that
there will be no boarding of dogs not owned by the owner. Mr. Miller added that the applicant
is working with the Health Department and the Department of Environmental Quality on the
proper disposal of dog waste.
Mr. Pete Dassler, applicant and property owner, stated that the kennel will be
strictly for breeding and there would be no boarding of dogs.
Chairman called for public comment and the following person came forward to
speak in opposition:
Mr. James Baker, a neighbor who lives two houses away from Mr. and Mrs.
Dassler, said that he was in opposition to this because of the potential noise and smell. Mr.
Baker said that he lived a couple hundred yards from the Dassler residence.
The Commissioners felt that the site was well -screened and far enough from
nearby residents that it would impose minimal impact.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #009-94 of Robin G. Dassler for a dog kennel with the
following conditions:
1. All review agency comments must be complied with at all times.
Col
2. Change of use or expansion of facilities to accommodate this use will require a new
conditional use permit.
3. All associated materials and supplies shall be stored inside.
4. All requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Code of Virginia pertaining to
dog kennels must be complied with at all times.
5. No boarding of dogs not owned by the applicant.
The vote for this application was:
YES (TO APPROVE THE CUPJ: Shickle, DeHaven, Morris, Thomas, Golladay, Marker,
Copenhaver, Stone, Light
NO: Romine (Mr. Wilson was absent.)
Conditional Use Permit #011-94 of Joseph Edmiston for a dog kennel_ This property is
located on Round Hill Road (Route 803) and is identified as PIN 52-A-232 in the Back
Creek District_
Action - Recommended Denial
Mr. Miller said that dog kennels are permitted in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning
District with an approved conditional use permit, however, the Edmistons established their kennel
without getting the required permit. He said that they are now coming forward with their request
as a result of complaints about the noise generated by their kennel. Mr. Miller said that the
property fronts on Round Hill Road and there are residences on the other three sides of the
property.
Mr. Miller said that the staff visited the site on October 19 and observed that a
privacy fence, which is only half completed, is being constructed around the kennel. Mr. Miller
felt that a privacy fence may not have much impact on generated noise. He said that a 20' X
30' concrete slab with a chain link fence and plastic cover has been constructed for the kennel.
He said that Mr. Edmiston has advised that he intended to construct a building on the slab to
house his dogs, however, Mr. Miller pointed out that the base construction of the building is in
violation of required setbacks. Mr. Miller said that Mr. Edmiston has suggested keeping the
[ions in the garage and Mr Miller felt this was not a rensnnable cnnn because the garage was
not ventilated, it did not have heat or air conditioning, and keeping the dogs penned in the garage
as a noise abatement technique would probably become an untenable situation.
VA
Mr. Miller said that the staff felt that allowing the kennel would definitely have
a significant impact on the neighborhood and should not be allowed.
Commissioners asked if this was a boarding kennel. Mr. Miller said that it was
a breeding kennel, not a boarding kennel.
Mr. Joseph Edmiston, applicant and property owner, introduced himself and his
wife, Laura Edmiston. Mr. Edmiston said that he was in contact with the Frederick County
Inspections Department and he also obtained a kennel license and neither agency had made him
aware that he might need a conditional use permit.
Mr. Edmiston said that the six foot privacy fence has been completed and he felt
this helped the situation by keeping stray dogs and other animals out of the sight of his dogs.
Mr. Edmiston said that he has also been housing potential barking dogs within the garage at
night. He said that he can enclose and soundproof the kennel by constructing a building
alongside the kennel and be within the required setbacks. Mr. Edmiston said that he spoke with
three adjoining property owners and they had no obiections to his kennel. Mr. Edmiston
presented photographs of the kennel, fence, and garage and he also presented written statements
from three adjoining property owners.
Commissioners asked Mr. Edmiston what breed the dogs were. Mr. Edmiston
replied that he has Golden Retrievers, Samoyeds, and Shelties. Mr. Edmiston said that he has
15 dogs, but his kennel license permits him to have 20 dogs.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, the Commission
unanimously voted to make the letters a part of the minutes. (The letters are located in CUP File
#011=94 of Joseph Edmiston.)
Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following persons came
forward to speak in opposition:
Mrs. Mary Nelson came forward and introduced herself and Mrs. Sandra
Pennington. Mrs. Nelson said that both she and Mrs. Pennington live about 200' feet from the
Edmistons. Mrs. Nelson said that she has called the Sheriffs Department, the Dog Warden, and
the Planning and Zoning Department to complain about the noise. She said she has called the
Sheriff's Department at 3:00 a.m. to come out and quiet the dogs. She said that this has been
going on all summer.
Mrs. Pennington said that in May she was diagnosed as having MS and fatigue
brings on her attacks. Mrs. Pennington played a tape of barking dogs that she said she taped
from her front porch last week. Mrs. Pennington said that the privacy fence is not helping the
situation. Mr. Pennington was also present.
Mr. Jammie Williamson said that his 76 year old grandmother cannot sleep due
n
to the barking dogs. He said that Mr. Edmiston's barking dogs are upsetting his own dog.
Mr. Edmiston felt that the barking these people spoke of was not corning from his
dogs. He said that his dogs are bedded down from 8:30 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.
Commissioners were concerned about the conflict that some neighbors, in
particular the ones that submitted letters, had no problems with noise, while those neighbors
present said they were bothered by noise. They felt that a determination needed to be made as
to whether the noise was in fact coming from Mr. Edmiston's dogs. The Commissioners felt
that if the noise was coming from Mr. Edmiston's dogs, they would not approve the CUP.
Mr. Light felt that if there were complaints, then some action needed to be taken
and he moved to deny the conditional use permit. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine,
but failed by the following vote:
YES (TQ DENY THE CUP): Stone, Light, Marker, Romine, Golladay
NO: Copenhaver, Thomas, Morris, DeHaven, Shickle
Mr. Stone next moved and Mr. Morris seconded the motion to table the
application for 30 days in order to determine if the barking was coming from Mr. Edmiston's
dogs. Chairman Golladay appointed Commissioners from the Gainesboro and Back Creek
Districts to investigate with neighbors in the area to determine where the noise was coming from.
This motion failed, however, by the following tie vote:
YES TO TABLE FOR 30 DAYS): DeHaven, Morris, Thomas, Copen.haver, Stone
NO: Shickle, Romine, Marker, Light, Golladay
Chairman Golladay decided to take further public comment and the following
person came forward:
Mr. Richard Nelson, adjoining property owner, said that on September 9, the
Sheriff's Department was called because the dogs were barking and no one could sleep. Mr.
Nelson said that the Sheriff's Department was called again on August 15 at 3:00 a.m.
Mr. Marker moved for denial of the Conditional Use Permit and this motion was
seconded by Mr. Romine.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit #52-A-232 of Joseph Edmiston for a dog kennel
E
to be located on Round Hill Road (Route 803) in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
The vote on this recommendation was as follows:
YES (TO DE_ NY THE CUP):_Shickle, DeHaven, Morris, Romine, Marker, Copenhaver,
Light, Stone, Golladay
NO: Thomas (Mr. Wilson was absent.)
Rezoning Application #007-94 of Frederick Mall Land Trust to rezone three acres from
RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) . This property is located west of
Greenwood Road (Rt. 636) on the south side of Senseny Road (Rt. 657) and is identified
as PIN 54 -A -125A in the Shawnee District.
Action - Recommend Approval
Mr. Harry Benham, who was present on behalf of the applicant, stated that in
September, the Planning Commission recommended the approval of the rezoning of the adjacent
Giles property (Parcel 195). Mr. Benham said that the parcel in question is a very thin parcel
(approximately 180' or 200' by 1,000') and Mrs. Shreck lives on the front portion, next to the
road. He said that the rear of her property is inaccessible. He said that Mrs. Shreck asked if
the remainder of her parcel could be developed along with the adjacent Giles tract, otherwise she
would have this long thin piece of property between the Giles tract and the farm parcel. (It was
noted that Parcel 120 was an active farm.) Mr. Benham said that Mrs. Shreck will retain her
house and its frontage; only the rear part of her property would be used in the development.
Commissioners noted that VDOT recommended that the site access road be located
opposite existing Route 1243 (Country Park Drive) to reduce possible turning movement
problems. They asked if there would be sufficient area available to accomplish this.
Mr. Benham replied that a small portion of the front of Mrs. Shreck's property
would have to be used, however, by adjoining the three acres with the 16 acres, they can get the
entrance as recommended by VDOT.
Mr. Benham added that the applicant had proffered no more than 32 units with
the Giles parcel and with the addition of Mrs. Shreck's parcel, they have increased that to no
more than 42 units, and this includes Mrs. Shreck's existing house.
There were no public comments.
Commissioners expressed great concern that with each approved development
10
proposal, Senseny Road was fast approaching its threshold for handling traffic. They felt that
at some point, development would have to stop until something was done with the road to be
able to support the traffic.
Mr. Watkins stated that the WATS predicts that if development continues as it has
been, that Senseny Road will be deficient in terms of Level D Service or below by 2010. He
said that the WATS supports the Planning Commission's concern.
Given the location of the parcel within the UDA and adjacent existing and
proposed RP zoning, along with the applicants proffered limit on the number of units and
monetary contribution to the general hind, the Commission was agreeable to rezoning the parcel.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Rezoning Application #007-94 of Frederick Mall Land Trust to rezone
three acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance) subject to the conditions
voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner.
Rezoning Application #008-94 of James Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres from RP (Residential
Performance) to B2 (Business General). This property is located at the intersection of
Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road and is identified as PIN 64A -4-20A in the Shawnee
District_
Action - Tabled to December 7, 1994
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., was
representing the property owner and applicant, Mr. James H. Carroll. Mr. Gyurisin felt there
were two outstanding issues regarding this request. He said that the first issue involved the
impact to Fire and Rescue Services. He said that after getting the results of the County's Impact
Model, they revised their proffer statement to include an increased emergency services payment
to Fire and Rescue. Mr. Gyurisin said that the other issue was a discrepancy on which lots were
involved in this rezoning. He presented a survey showing the four lots involved and he said that
those four lots total the amount of acreage advertised for this public hearing.
Mr. Thomas felt that traffic was going to be a major consideration at this location
and he inquired if there were any entrances planned to get back onto Route 50 from this location.
Mr. Gyurisin replied that there were no plans to modify the existing street network.
Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following people came
forward to speak in opposition:
11
Mr. Charles Bennett, a homeowner in Pembridge Heights and a member of the
Board of Directors for the Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association, presented a petition with
199 signatures of residents in his development who were opposed to rezoning this parcel of land.
Mr. Bennett said that the issues of the homeowners association were: 1) the increase in traffic
from this proposal and other development along Route 50; 2) the existing access road does not
seem to be adequate to allow safe access and the single entrance to Route 50 is a problem; 3)
Pembridge Drive is tar and chip and is not adequate to handle existing subdivision traffic; 4)
a run-off problem exists on proposed Parcel B; and 5) complaints have been received about a
sewer -like stench coming from the proposed site.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, the
Commissioners unanimously voted to make the petition a part of the official record. (petition
located in Rezoning File ##008-94 of James H. Carroll)
Mr. Gene Kefler, a homeowner in Pembridge Heights, said that the notification
letter that he received from the County indicated that this proposal was for Parcel 64A -10-B,
when in actuality it's for a much larger area, Parcels 64A -4-20A, 64A -10-A, and 64A -10-B.
Mr. Kefler felt that Custer Avenue and Pembridge Drive were inadequate to handle the existing
traffic, let alone the addition of commercial traffic. He also felt that a commercial use at the
entrance to this subdivision was inappropriate.
Ms. Regina Rishawd, a homeowner on Lot 51 in Pembridge Heights, read a letter
from her neighbors, Allison and Steve Mundy, who were unable to attend the meeting. Mrs.
Rishawd said that she was in concurrence with Mr. and Mrs. Mundy's feelings and was strongly
opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. John Smoot, Pembridge Heights resident, felt it would be very difficult to add
a deceleration lane along Route 50, entering Custer Avenue, because of a large 50+ long swale,
which was approximately 6'-8' deep. Mr. Smoot said that they have only one entrance that
needed to handle 200+ residents and three school bus schedules and he was concerned about
additional commercial traffic. He also had concerns about noise that may be generated from
commercial development.
Mr. Cary Kimble, a resident of Pembridge Heights and a member of the Board
of Directors of the Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association, said that there was already a
traffic problem here and he felt the rezoning will make the problem worse. Mr. Kimball
thought that Mr. Carroll had not maintained the property very well. Mr. Kimball said that they
have had to call their representative on the Board of Supervisors about mowing, debris, and to
eliminate the storage of construction machinery and materials.
Mr. Tom Hantz, resident on Pembridge Drive, said that he moved to this area to
be in a quiet neighborhood. He thought the business zoning would destroy that and that the area
would become an eyesore.
12
Mr. David Head, resident of Pembridge Heights and member of the Board of
Directors of the Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association, said that the intersection at Custer
Avenue and Route 50 is dangerous. He said that there is no turn lane and where it changes from
55 mph to 35 mph, he has nearly been rear-ended in his vehicle several times, especially in bad
weather. Mr. Head said that the turn is very sharp and is considered to be unsatisfactory for use
by the community. He said that they expected this property to be a community -oriented
property, not a strip mall.
Mrs. Laura Fox, homeowner on Pembridge Drive, was opposed to rezoning and
felt this area should be kept residential.
Mr. Jim Davern, homeowner in Pembridge Heights, said that he has direct view
of this property from his home. Mr. Davern felt that others in this subdivision should have been
sent letters of notification besides just the "adjoining" property owners.
Ms. Marianne Gordon, resident of Pembridge Heights, felt that business zoning
at this location would be a detriment to the Pembridge Heights community.
Ms. Elizabeth Harmon, adjoining property owner, was under the impression that
this area was to remain as open space.
Ms. Kay Hunt, adjoining property owner, said that she was told when she
purchased her property that this land was to remain vacant because it was a floodplain. (Mr.
Sager asked Mrs. Hunt who gave her that information and she replied that her realtor said he got
the information from the owner.)
Mr. Mark Shanholtz, resident of Pembridge Heights, said that this property is not
on Route 50. He said that you come off Route 50 into the residential area to get to this parcel.
He felt that a lot of traffic would be generated by a business located here.
Mr. Scott Snyder, homeowner in Pembridge Heights, was opposed because of the
increase in traffic and because of the potential for the proposal to decrease the market value of
area homes.
Ms. Mary Harris, resident of Pembridge Heights and a realtor, said that she was
unhappy with the type of homes that were built in this subdivision and she was unhappy with the
traffic problems.
Mr. James H. Carroll, the owner of the property, came forward for rebuttal. Mr.
Carroll said that Carroll Construction Company does not own this property and never has. Mr.
Carroll said that he never told anyone that this property was floodplain. Regarding the safety
factor, Mr. Carroll said that he met with VDOT's resident engineer, Mr. William H. Bushman,
at the site and Mr. Bushman said there would be a traffic light at this location within a year.
13
Mr. Carroll said that L.F. Franklin Company was paving at this Iocation this past
summer. He said that L.F. Franklin stored asphalt material on his property without his
permission. Mr. Carroll said that he resented the public comment implying that Carroll
Construction Company was not a good caretaker of the property.
Mr. Carroll said that the developers of this subdivision asked him if they could
have right-of-way through his property for access to Route 50. Mr. Carroll said that he had an
informal discussion with the Planning Commission to get their feelings on granting him
commercial zoning if he would give these people an easement. He said that at the time, the
Commission's feelings were favorable, but when the rezoning carne up, it was denied. Mr.
Carroll felt that there was so much commercial zoning along this road now, that no one would
want to put a house there.
Chairman Golladay concurred with Mr. Carroll about the discussion that took
place at that time. He said, however, that the uses, and whether or not the proposal would be
for BI or 132, was not specified. Chairman Golladay said that his major concern with this
property was the uses. He said that he did not have a problem with this being commercial, as
long as it was compatible with the neighborhood.
The Commissioners were in agreement that the intersection at 50 and Custer
Avenue was dangerous and needed work. It was pointed out that traffic had to travel through
the commercial area in order to get to the residential development. Some Commissioners felt
they could support a B 1 zoning or a B2 zoning if the more intense uses were proffered out, while
other Commissioners felt it was too late to put commercial zoning here, since most of the homes
in Pembridge Heights had already been built and sold.
Mr. Morris moved to deny the rezoning and this was seconded by Mr. Thomas.-,
The motion to deny failed, however, due to the following vote:
YE TO DENY THE REZ NI G : Morris, Thomas, Golladay, Stone
NO. Light, Copenhaver, Marker, Romine, DeHaven, Shickle
(Mr. Wilson was absent.)
At the Commission's request, the staff read the B2 uses.
A motion was next made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver to table
the application for 30 days.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
table Rezoning Application #008-94 of James H. Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres at the intersection
of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Drive from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business
14
General) for 30 days or until the Commission's December 7, 1994 meeting.
COMPLETION OF CORRIDOR STUDY REPORT
Mr. Tierney presented the completed Reporton_ Policies for Business Corridors
within Frederick County. Mr. Tierney said that the report culminates nearly two years of work
on the part of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee. He said that the report
contains statistical information on existing land use and zoning as well as environmental features
for the three corridors examined. Mr. Tierney said that a desired scenario for future land use
for the three corridors is also mapped out, along with locations of needed road connections.
The Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the report.
CORRIDOR H VIRGINIA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Watkins said that the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board instructed
VDOT to form an advisory committee to study the West Virginia Corridor H proposals. He said
that the Virginia Citizens Advisory Committee was formed with representatives from various
local governments and groups. Mr. Watkins presented the final statement of consensus and
recommendations from the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Milton Boyce, resident of Stephens City, came forward to speak about the
Inland Port. He said that Virginia wanted the Inland Port to be able to ship area goods out of
Norfolk, instead of New York harbor, and it had the potential to bring money to Virginia. Mr.
Boyce said that he has observed many signs restricting truck traffic going to the Inland Port. He
did not think this was wise, since he felt the biggest users of the Inland Port were Ohio and West
Virginia. Mr. Boyce felt that the original proposal needed to be looked at again, especially since
the surrounding areas were promised that we would take care of their goods and help rebuild
Norfolk. He said that he read in the newspaper that the Inland Port was only making
$10,000,000 a year. He felt that was obvious, because there was no route that would bring you
across West Virginia to get you to that Inland Port without going to New York.
No action was needed by the Commission on this item.
15
ADJOURNMENT
No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:00
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report
DATE: November 28, 1994
(1) Rezonin s Pending: dates are submittal dates
C. L. Robinson
03/30/94
BkCk
RA
to
B3
Brown Lovett, Jr.
09/14/94
Ston
RA
to
M1
Frederick Mall
08/10/94
Shaw
RA
to
RP
Frederick Mall
10/07/94
Shaw
RA
to
RP
James Carroll
10/07/94
Shaw
RP
to
B2
Valley Mill Estates
11/10/94
Shaw
RA
to
RP
(2) Rezonin s Approved: dates are BOS meeting dates
None
(3) Rezonin s Denied: dates are BOS meeting dates
None
(4) Conditional Use Permits Pending: dates are submittal dates
Robin Dassler 09/23/94 Gaines Private Dog Breeding
Kennel
(5)
Joe Edmiston
10/07/94 BcCk Kennel
Conditional Use Permits Approved: dates are approval dates
None
(6) Site Plans Pending: dates are submittal dates
Wheatlands Wastewater
Grace Brethren Church
Flex Tech
Lake Centre
Red Star Express Lines
Regency Lakes Sec. C
Garber
Taco Bell
Fac. 09/12/89 Opeq
06/08/90 Shaw
10/25/90 Ston
05/15/91 Shaw
05/24/91 Ston
07/25/94 Ston
07/26/94 Shaw
09/27/94 Gaines
Trmt.facil
Church
Lgt. Industrial
Townhouses
Whse. Addition
Mobile Homes
Retail Commercial
Restaurant
2
Kraft General Foods
10/06/94
Ston
Addition
Shenandoah Valley Baptist
10/14/94
Opeq
Classroom Addition
Amoco Foam
10/27/94
Ston
Outdoor Storage
Westminster Canterbury
11/16/94
Gaines
Duplex Housing
Preston Place Apt. II
11/23/94
Shaw
Apartments
(7) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates)
None
(8) Subdivisions Pendia dates are submittal dates
Briarwood Est. 01/04/94 Ston
Hampton Chase Sec. I 10/05/94 Ston
Negley 10/11/94 Ston
Preston Place 10/31/94 Shaw
Lenoir City Company 11/09/94 Gaines
(9) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (PIC or BOS approval
dates
Abrams Point,
Lake Centre
Fredericktowne
Harry Stimpson
Phase I
Est., Sec 8 & 9
06/13/90
Shaw
06/19/91
Shaw
10/06/93
Opeq
10/26/94
Opeq
(10) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Fieldstone Heights 04/25/94 Ston
Saratoga Meadows 11/14/94 Shaw
Westminster Canterbury 11/16/94 Gaines
(11) PMDP Approved: (Dates are approval dates)
None
(12) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval
dates
Battlefield Partnership
James R. Wilkins III
Lake Front Apartments
Star Fort
04/08/92 BaCk
04/14/93 Shaw
06/08/94 Shaw
09/14/94 Gain
(13) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending:(submit. dates)
Weber's Nursery
11/08/94
Ston
Margaret Johnson
11/21/94
BaCk
Burger King
11/23/94
Gain
Burger King
11/23/94
Gain
Amoco
11/23/94
Gain
Amoco
11/23/94
Gain
3
Holiday Inn 11/23/94 Opeq
Holiday Inn 11/23/94 Opeq
(14) BZA Applications Approved• (approval dates)
None
(15)_BZA Applications Denied•
None
(16) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER
None
1E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #69 Nov. 1-15
1. Transportation
Evan Wyatt revised the Frederick County Secondary Road
Improvement Plan based on allocation recommendations by VDOT for
Macedonia Church Road (Rt. 642) and Shawnee Drive (Rt. 652).
Bob Watkins attended a VDOT meeting where ISTEA
enhancement grant application procedures were discussed.
2. Plan Reviews,-ARprovals, and Site Inspections:
Evan Wyatt approved a site plan for an office addition to
the Shenandoah Gas Company.
Evan Wyatt reviewed a site plan for the Garber Estate for
a new retail building.
Evan Wyatt reviewed a revised Master Development Plan for
Preston Place II Apartments and Townhouses.
Evan Wyatt conducted site inspections to verify site
improvements at Regency Lakes Mobile Home Park, The Minute Wok, and
Johnsons Exxon.
Jean Moore has reviewed a draft site plan for the
addition to Cracker Barrel.
3. Battlefield Preservation
Bob Watkins gave a presentation on battlefield efforts to
the Stonewall Ruritan.
A forum was held on the battlefield efforts on Saturday,
November 12 at Armel School. Approximately 40 people attended and
provided ideas on battlefield planning.
4. Meetings
Evan Wyatt participated in a meeting with EDC to assist
the Mid -Atlantic Distribution Center site selection team with
questions regarding property in the Airport Business Center and the
Westview Business Center.
Evan Wyatt and Wayne Miller participated in a meeting
with EDC to assist the Toray Industries site selection team with
questions regarding property along Valley Pike.
Evan Wyatt met with Gary DeOms and John Stelzl to
continue work on the proposed Double Church Road Agricultural and
Forestal District.
Bob Watkins and Evan Wyatt met with Chuck Maddox, of G.W.
Clifford & Associates, to discuss revisions to the Coventry Courts
Master Development Plan and the Dominion Knolls Master Development
Plan.
On November 4, Kris Tierney met with Steve Gyurisin to
discuss proffers on a proposed residential rezoning along Valley
Mill Road.
Kris also met with an individual interested in a B-3,
(Industrial Transition ) rezoning along the south side of Route 7,
(in front of the Franklin Mobile Home Park) for the sale of mobile
homes.
On November 9, Kris met with Steve Gyurisin to discuss a
potential B3 rezoning on a portion of the RT&T property, located
near the Route 37 and 11 South interchange.
5. Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee
The Committee has nearly finalized their recommended
update of the Comprehensive Plan. The update will go to the
Planning Commission as a discussion item at their December 7
meeting. It is hoped that the recommended update will go to the
Board in either January or February.
The Committee has also begun drafting the 1995-96 Capital
Improvements Plan. It is anticipated that the CIP will go to the
Commission in January.
6. Violations
Jean Moore and Eric Lawrence continue to respond to
citizen complaints about Zoning Ordinance violations. Complaints
about inoperable vehicles have been the most frequently voiced
concern.
8. Other
Jean Moore is currently working on maps to help support
items presented at the Planning Commission Retreat.
Eric Lawrence continues progress toward developing a
Historical Plaque Program. It is the intention of this program to
acknowledge the numerous properties in the county which are a
valuable source of history to both the local and national heritage.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II f
RE: Proposed Maintenance Hanger.`/Office Space At The Winchester Regional
Airport
DATE: November 28, 1994
Mr. Michael D. Kane, Delta Airport Consultants P.E., has requested an opportunity to present
a site plan during the December 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting regarding the above
referenced improvements. The Winchester Regional Airport Authority plans to develop a new
hanger that will provide two stories of office space, as well as an area that will be utilized for
the maintenance of aircraft. Additional parking areas will be provided for the proposed facility.
Enclosed is a copy of the proposed site plan for your review. Staff has asked Mr. Kane to
present this plan formally to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This will
allow each body to comment on this proposal and permit staff to ensure that these comments are
adequately addressed by the applicant prior to final site plan approval. Staff asks that the
Planning Commission provide administrative approval authority for the proposed site plan once
all comments have been adequately addressed.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
DELTA
AIMMOMT CONSULTANTS, /NC_
engineers - planners
Richmond Charlotte
November 21, 1994
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Frederick County Planning Dept.
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Site Plan Documentation
Relocate Parallel Taxiway A
Winchester Regional Airport
Winchester, Virginia
AIF Project No. 3-51-0059-10/11
Delta Project No. VA 9302 & VA 9439
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
As per our recent telephone conversation please find enclosed the following items which should
complete the site plan approval process.
1. As per site plan comments from the following:
a. Frederick County Inspections Department
b. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation
C. Federal Aviation Administration
d. City of Winchester
e. Frederick Winchester Health Department
f. County of Frederick Fire Marshall
g. Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District
2. Please find enclosed sheets 1, 3A, 3 and 9 through 22 for the project plans.
In a related matter Delta is requesting an opportunity to address the Planning Commission
(December 7, 1994) and the Board of Supervisors (December 14, 1994) for the new airport
hangar site referenced in your November 21, 1994 letter.
Copies of the proposed site plan will be forwarded under a separate cover prior to the scheduled
meetings.
7333 Whitepine Road Telephone (804) 275-8301
Richmond, VA 23237 Fax (804) 275-8371
Mr. Evan Wyatt
November 21, 1994
Page Two
If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Kane, P. E.
MDK: kgp
Enclosures
cc: Granville Amos, Executive Director wo/encl.
VA 9302 C191
OEL TA
A /RPOR T CONSUL TA NTS /NC,
engineers - plannel-s
Richmond
Charlotte
November 23, 1994
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Frederick County Planning Dept.
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
RE: Corporate Hangar Site Plan
Winchester Regional Airport
Winchester, Virginia
Delta Project No. VA 9439
Delta has forwarded preliminary plans for your review to determine which sheets will be
required for the twenty-five (25) copies required. The twenty-five (25) copies and presentation
slide will be forwarded to your office no later than December 1, 1994. In addition, the airport
will complete the site plan application and send the request for site plan comments to the
appropriate agencies.
If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Kane, P. E.
MDK: kgp
VA 9439 C016
7333 Whitepine Road Telephone (804) 275-8301
Richmond, VA. 23237 Fax (804) 275-8371
PC REVIEW: 12/07/94
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 012-94
LENOIR CITY COMPANY
LOCATION: This property is located at the end of McGhee Road in
the Stonewall Industrial Park.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 43-19-2 and 43-19-43
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned Ml (Light Industrial) - land
use: vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) -
land use: vacant
PROPOSED USE: No use has been specified at this time.
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: No objection to subdivision of
this property. This section of street is currently not in the
State's Secondary Road System. However, all entrance design
and drainage features must meet State requirements if the
street is to be eligible for acceptance. A complete set of
construction plans will be required for review. See attached
letter dated October 31, 1994.
SANITATION AUTHORITY: No comment.
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT: No comment required at this time.
PLANNING AND ZONING: There is an approved master plan for the
Stonewall Industrial Park of which this property is a part.
This proposed subdivision meets all the ordinance
requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR -1217194 P/C MEETING: Approval as
presented.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 278
DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN
COMMISSIONER October 31, 1994 RESIDENT ENGINEER
TELE(703)984-5600
FAX(703)984-5607
Mr. Steve Gyurisin
C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Steve:
Ref: Stonewall Industrial Park
Route 861
Frederick County
We have reviewed your proposed subdivision of Parcel No. 43 in the referenced
development and offer the following comments:
1. The approved site plan prepared by your office includes a drainage easement
along the front and west side of the property.
2. The approved site plan also indicates McGee Road has a 60' right-of-way. Is the 80'
shown on the plat for the cul-de-sac area only?
Once these items have been addressed, please resubmit the plat for signature. If you
have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
William H. Bushman
Trans. Resident Engineer
Itz'4
By: Robert B. Childress
Trans. Permits & Subdivision
Specialist Supervisor
RBC/rf
T V
Enclosure
xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff ;
Mr. R. W. Watkins
a
Mr. Tom Gilpin c{1
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST
SUBDIVISION
FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA
Date:October 24 1994 Application #: L, ;�-(*) Fee Paid
Applicant/Agent: Mr -Stephen M. G urisin
Address: 200 North Cameron Street
Winchester Virginia 22601
Phone: 703-667-2139 fax 703--665-0493
Owners name: Lenoir City Company of Vircrinia
Address: PO BOX 1657 Winchester Va. 22604
Phone: 703 678-1110
Please list names of all owners, principals, and/or majority
stockholders:
Mr. Tom Gilpin
Contact person:__. Stephen M Gvurisin
Phone: 703 667-2139
Name of Subdivision: Lenoir Cit ComDany of Vircrinia
Number of Lots:
Total Acreage: 48.834 Acres
Property Location: Stonewall Industrial Park - located at the end
of McGhee Road
(Give State Rt.#, name, distance and
Magisterial District: Gainesboro
Property Identification Number (PIN):
direction from intersection)
13
43-( (19))-2 anL43 * •.41
Property zoning and present use:M-1 Industrial and Vacant
Adjoining property zoning and use:M-1 Industrial and Vacant
Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project?
Yes XX No
If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of
Supervisors?
Yes XX No
What was the MDP title? Stonewall Industrial Park
Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP?
Yes No XX
If yes, specify what changes. N/A
Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot):N A
Number and types of housing units in this development:
Number: N/A
Types: N/A
j � - �(x�B�5�9`�� • I �
-N- \
SIDE
r
11
716
Ap
SCALE: 1Y =2000F
APPROVED BY
Virginia Department of Transportation
Planning Commission
Subdivision Administrator
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
1,
I
1 BM
70 �.
INTERC
Date _
Dote _
Date
Dote —
6�C
NGE 82.
OWNERS' CERTIFICATE
The above and foregoing Minor Subdivision of the fond of Lenoir City Company of Virginia,
a Virginia Corporation, as appears in the accompanying plat, is with the consent and in accordance
with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors and trustees, if any.
NOTARY PUBLIC
11 , a Notary Public in and for the state of Virginia at large, do certify that
and
whose names
are signed to the foregoing Owners' Certificate, have acknowledged the some before me in my state.
Given under my hand this day of
My commission expires
1994.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
l hereby certify that the land contained in this Minor Subdivision is a portion of
the land conveyed to Lenoir City Company of Virginia, a Virginia Corporation, by deed dated
1 January 1968, said deed recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick
County, Virginia in Deed Book 344 at Page 235.
JM 43 (09)) Pcl 2
Zoned: M-1 Douglas C. L g L. S.
Use: Vacant
Final Plat for
IM 43 ((19)) Pcl 43
Zoned M-1 MINOR SUBDIVISION
Use: uacont Of The Land Of
of Len odr City Company of
Goirlesboro Magisterial District
L� Plat: MS-SUP.dwg Frederick County,9 Vr inia
CERTIFICATE N DATE: 20 October 1994 Cover Sheet Sheet 1 of 2
`0 1197 a
y� Z i gilbert w_ clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS
LAND 150—C Olde Greenwich Drive
SURVEYOR Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 200 North Cameron Street
(703) 898-2115
Winchester. Virginia 22601
(703) 667-2139
Pd 2
41.88 Acres
Lenoir City Company of Virginia
McGhee Road
60' R/W R = 75.00'
L = 82.25'
t J 1r
1 1 P ny o iginio
(Remainder) V- 75' B.R.L. �� (Remainder)
Zoned- M-1 N 16 08'05 " E Zoned. M-1
Use. Vocan t 250.00 r / \ Use. Vocan t
20' Drainage Esm't
Dc� j
Grand Property
Parcel 43
If"
69540 AcresZoned: M-1
Zoned. M-1Use: Warehouse
Use. Vacan t h �/1�� \
-
� ` \`ls• � v V`
oG S X�
9% Paul D_ Muldowney, et al
�a Q j ✓ 5 Zoned. M-1
o
Use: Industria!
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
Front = 75'
Rear = 25'
Side = 25'
Pc/ 2
41.88 Acres
Lenoir Cit Com o f I/"-
NO TES:
1. No title report furnished.
2. Easements may exist that are not shown.
3. Iron rods found or set at all property corners.
4. Lots are subject to a 10' Drainoge &
Utility Easement along all property lines
and along all rights-of-way.
TM 43 ((19)) Pc! 2
Zoned. • M-1
Use: Vocan t
TM 4,5 ((19)) Pcl 43
Zoned- M-1
Use. Vocan t
Revised 7 November 1994
\-N H
1,
E
C3 CERTIFICATE O. �.
U 1197
7"
LA D
SURVEYOR_
0 loo 200 ,00
Graphic Scale in Feet
1 -=200'
Finol Plat for
MINOR SUBDI VISION
Of Ti, Land Of
Len oir City Company of Virwlnia
Gainesboro Magisterial District
Plat: MS-SUP.dwg Frederick County, Virginia
DATE: 20 October 1994 SCALE: 1"=200' Shet3t` 2 ,of '2"
gilbert w_ Clifford & associates, ihC' .,
ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEY'0 -& 1 LCL
150—C Olde Greenwich Drive - ul._Z,7�
Fredericksburg.treet
Ar Inla 22401 200 or Cameron 2601
9 Winchester, Yrginia 22601
(703) 898-2115 (703) 667-2139
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
Proposed Subdivision, M. Willis White
November 29, 1994
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703 / 678-0682
In conjunction with their estate planning, Mr. M. Willis White, on behalf of his parents,
Mr. & Mrs. C. Ridgely White, is requesting permission to create a minor rural
subdivision that does not meet current ordinance requirements. Exceptions to the
subdivision ordinance can be approved by the Board of Supervisors following a
recommendation by the Planning Commission.
The requested exception is to allow the division of the land as depicted on the attached
plat. The issue is not the permitting of reduced setbacks but one of allowing division of
land that will result in reduced setbacks. There are two houses on the property and this
proposed division will result in the houses being located on separate tracts. Because of
the location of the houses, it would be impossible to divide the land so as to put the
houses on separate tracts and not have reduced setbacks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION• Approval as requested.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
November 11, 1994
Willis White
603 S. Loudoun St.
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn.:: Mr. Wayne Miller
Frederick County Planning Dept.
Winchester, VA.
Frederick County Planning & Development,
On behalf of Mr. & Mrs. C. Ridgely White I am requesting a
reduction of set back requirements from proposed easement. Proposed
easement is necessary in order for us to divide 11.008 acres off from
existing farm. Farm parcel is identified as tax map number #53-A-92
Easement is necessary to allow an access for existing house on parcel
#53-A-90.
We are asking for a thirty two foot (32') set back reduction from
house # 180 on proposed 11.008 acres. We are also asking for a twenty
two foot (22') set back reduction from house # 175 on parcel #53-A-90.
Set back reduction requests are for the purpose of estate planning.
Please review and foreword our request to the Frederick County
Planning Commission and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
M. Willis White
�I
7G
ICD
LO
►i
/VS
R R� 299 - 299 V
:2 96,6 . .98. A( 54 0 29
-
/ J
3 c;/5
//.008 ACRES
tD ,
� W
i 2
lit
2
vu
Y p �
F^U
a U Z
W �
c
LL
(o
cvjO
M �
fn
Q tf'
tD ,
� W
i 2
lit
2
vu
Y p �
F^U
a U Z
W �
c
LL
Candy Hill
Campground
yds (M.H.P.)
J
88 x
2 pts.
1
ro
d -
r92
3 pts
IN
BM 782
92
�3pts.
-qNQ
Q)
p oc
v
C
Coro
or
\� to
31
27
2s 3
29
20
0
zs
z1
7�/�
2�
tg
/
7A
17
16 O n
) rp
R4 1306
ew. nce.
t 13 O
2 "
1:\\cu
,QY 3"
10
0 ^� 11
�h
O
Q
3 ti
4
6A
CO
BM 782
92
�3pts.
-qNQ
Q)
p oc
v
C
Coro
or
\� to
PC REVIEW: 12/07/94
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 007-94
SARATOGA MEADOWS
LOCATION: The property is located on the south side of Senseny Road
(Route 657), approximately 150 feet west of the
intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road (Route
656).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
PROPERTY ID NUMBER:
Shawnee
55-A-195 & 54 -A -125A
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
PIN 55-A-195: Zoned RA (Rural Area) Current Land Use: vacant
PIN 54 -A -125A: Zoned RA (Rural Area) Current Land Use: residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Areas) - farm use; RP
(Residential Performance) - residential
PROPOSED USE: Single family detached traditional housing
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to preliminary
master plan. Before making any final comments, this office
will require a complete set of site plans, drainage
calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip
Generation Manual, Fourth Edition for review. Before starting
any construction on the State's right-of-way the developer
will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate
permits to cover said work. To accommodate future
improvements to Route 657, we recommend a minimum 10' wide
right-of-way dedication be provided along the entire property
frontage.
Sanitation Authority: No Comment.
Inspections Dept.: Building shall comply with the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 310 Use Group R
(Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993.
Fire Marshal: 1) Post temporary street signs when
construction begins. 2) Post temporary street addresses when
home construction begins. 3) Maintain access for emergency
vehicles at all times during construction. 4) Burning of
construction debris on site is prohibited.
County Engineer: The preliminary master development plan for
the proposed Saratoga Meadows is approved as submitted
(October 21, 1994 plan). A detailed review will be performed
on the subdivision plan. It is anticipated that 2 storm water
detention facilities will be required to accommodate the
increases in storm runoff. These facilities shall be designed
to contain the post 10 year storm and release only the 2 year
predevelopment storm.
Planning & Zoning: The proposed preliminary master
development plan calls for the development of 42 single family
detached traditional lots on 19.447 acres. This creates an
overall gross density of 2.16 dwelling units per acre which
complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The minimum lot
size within the proposed development is 15,000 square feet;
therefore, common open space and recreational facilities are
not required. The topography of the site is gently rolling
and does not contain steep slopes, flood plains, sink holes,
ponds, or woodlands. There is an existing vegetative area
that separates the rear of this property from the existing
Greenwood Heights Section III subdivision; however, the mature
hardwoods and cedars do not meet the definition of woodlands
as specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff has identified specific issues that warrant discussion.
These issues regard the existing dwelling, road efficiency
buffers, storm water management areas, the extension of
sanitary sewer, and future deeds of dedication:
1) Existing Dwelling: A single family detached dwelling unit
exists on parcel number 54 -A -125A. The applicant plans to
include this house within Saratoga Meadows; therefore, this
unit will be one of the 42 proposed lots. The lot that will
be created for the existing unit will need to meet the
required setbacks specified in the RP Zoning District.
2) Road Efficiency Buffer• The Functional Classification
Plan and the Eastern Road Plan designate Senseny Road (Route
657) as a major collector. The Zoning Ordinance requires all
residential structures to be separated from this type of road
by a road efficiency buffer. These requirements permit access
roads that will serve other properties to traverse the buffer
area. Therefore, the proposed location of Saratoga Drive does
not create a problem. The applicant needs to identify the
type of road efficiency buffer that will be used (full or
reduced), as well as provide the location and description on
the final master development plan and all final subdivision
plats.
3) Storm Water Management Areas: The proposed plan indicates
that there will be two areas designated for storm water
management. These areas appear to currently function as
natural retention areas. Natural retention areas are
permitted to be replaced by artificial storm water facilities
provided that the total storage capacity of the site and the
drainageways are maintained. Staff believes that the location
of the proposed storm water management facilities needs to be
indicated and described on all subdivision plats that will
adjoin these areas.
Off-site improvements to the Riggleman property will have to
occur in order to create a functional storm water management
system in the southern portion of this site. This is
necessary to ensure that the storm water will be able to reach
the corrugated metal pipe that goes under Greenwood Road
(Route 656). Staff believes that a note needs to be placed on
the plan that describes the off-site improvement. Staff also
believes that the applicant needs to provide Frederick County
with a signed, legal agreement between the two property owners
that documents this improvement.
4) Sanitary Sewer Extension: The proposed plan indicates
that an 8" sanitary sewer line will be extended off-site and
will intercept a manhole along Greenwood Road (Route 656).
Statements need to be placed on the final master development
plan concerning the connection with and the availability of
the existing facility. Staff believes that similar notes and
legal agreements as described under issue #3 need to be
provided for this off-site improvement.
5) Deeds of Dedication: Section 144-32 of the Frederick
County Subdivision Ordinance requires the creation of a
property owners association for the continuous maintenance and
management of all common areas, easements, storm water
management facilities, and dedicated facilities associated
within an approved subdivision. Staff believes that it is
important to understand this requirement at this phase of the
planning process. Subdivisions that do not have common open
space or recreational facilities still contain drainage
easements and storm water management facilities that require
maintenance. This is accomplished by the residents of the
proposed subdivision; not by Frederick County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval provided that the pending rezoning
application is approved by the Board of Supervisors and that the
applicant adequately address all issues presented by staff, as well
as all comments and concerns of the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors.
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Frederick County
Virginia
Date: Application
OWNERS NAME: _ )per LeS
S.
)UNE �. S ttrz,E�k.
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
APPLICANT/AGENT: CD MOF -M W AUS , �C
Address: q10 f644eq_ Lq&G
U) i M +eP-VR _ , V A . Z7.6aZ
Daytime Phone Number 6 2,- 416 S
DESIGNER/ DESIGN COMPANY: _Sah&E AS A130L)
Address:
Phone Number
Contact Name
PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHECKLIST;
'
The following checklist is intended to assist the applican.9 Z
insuring that all required information is provided or is available
to allow review by the County.
This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the
preliminary master development plan. All required items must be
provided on the PMDP.
Background Information:
1. Development's name: SARAATOGA MEAPoWS
2, Location of property: GWTaf=�pM &,nE oi;: 2r, (flS7i ISO Fr. WR -Sr OP 2r. bs(o
3. Total area of property: ) 9. 447 AG.
4. Property ID # (14 Digit) E55 -L82 -M6
5. Property zoning and present use QA - \/ACAN r Fi - dnMAAE2X1gL.
6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: RA - FAeM USE
2P-(P-ESQr)P-NT1aL-
7 . Proposed Uses: S) rdQL e PAW Ly-herAC,i'1W
8. Magisterial District: S} AWNEC
9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original V/ Amended
General Information:
1. Have the following items been included?
North arrow
Scale
Legend
Boundary Survey
Total Area
Topography
Project Title
Preparation and Revision Date
Applicant's Signed
Consent Statement
2. Number of phases proposed? Q NS,
Yes ✓
No
Yes ✓
No
Yes
No�—
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes=
No
Yes ,/
No
Yes=
No
3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Mastyr Development Plan?
Yes No
4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated?
Yes \/ No
5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project
and all public roads within 2,000 feet.
Yes J No
6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yeses/ No
7. Are environmental features clearly shown?
Yes / No
8. Describe the following environmental features:
Total Area
(Acres)
Floodplains p
Lakes and ponds p
Natural retention
areas p
Steep slopes '
(15% or more) p
Woodlands n
9
% Disturbed Acres in
by development Open Space
9. Are the following shown on the master development plan?
Street layout Yes -,/
Entrances Yes No
Parking areas Yes No
Utilities (mains) Yes No'<�
10. Has a conceptual stormwater management Blan been provided?,
Yes No V
11. Have all historical structures been identified?
YesNo
Residential Uses
If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP,
(Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following
items should be completed.
1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? 42 9jmG(-F—
M I LU T�1C } 1 �D �2 A D (TIO d.l ►'� L.
2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each
phase:
Open space acreage Yes No
Acreage in each housing type Yes No
Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes No
Total acreage Yes No
Number of dwellings of each type Yes_No�
3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open
space? No n1G
10
t 1.
4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes No
5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? ;; �w
5IV
6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No ✓
7. Are road efficiency buffers required? YesNI No
8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required?
Yes No
9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by
the plan with profiles or examples? Yes No 7
F04
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS '
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified, o'er the•-publiC
hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjoiningz�praperty`is ani
property abutting the requested property on the side or -"rear or ani
property directly across a road from the requested property. Tht
applicant is required to obtain the following information on each
adjoining property including the 14 digit tax parcel identification number
which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue.
NAME
r,Foe-6E E.
W PAaEf
Address ZZZ 2oSSUM LAKE W1W_H-FSte0- V4. Z2_16CZ
Property ID# �Sq—((_-7))-9
k�a-r141 S.
KESS
Address 916 �2t?ENc+O'oo_� Co. 1, Kc�TRA_ V4, ZZ/ooZ
Property P Y ID# Cosa -((-7))-7
�O ycr L,
i3eOwN
Address S Cnd(_).bqE 2n, a54z8
Property
�il LISA S .
MU2pµy
Address g38 (o$EV_A 4bM 2DW1 kiC4E,2*iZ_, VRI. ZZ60Z
Property ID#&Sq -(( 7)) —5
Caq�W.
I(_UJ F"V-
Address 9<q(, 6ejP_"L9oa fZb. LO►RCWZTfr � Vf1, ZZhOZ
Property ID# GSA -((-Z))-4
001tp <, f
MALOKL G S2
Address (46S 6RkEMCO"r, (2D, VS INCNIGSTJ QL �A, 2Z0dz
Property ID# 6S.447))-3
( Sa4AG 14.
'DUMCAAI .)2-•
Address 9G4 r,,pe�(Ooap WrMCU4aT" SVA_, Z7Zh0Z
Property ID#(DSH _((1)�_�
MA2T IN 2. C3rTr� [ ,
�AoD(�,SoQ
Address 9 64- (�2E.� UU�opp �2A_ U/ 1 AA(AesTrrip-
Property ID# (o5A -((7))- ( 6
LULr� 4.
LELk) tS
Address C) &0 G2EEkqJ0a0 21). W,Hct�ESrEC \)A.
Property ID#
L)Ee,QA B. � 2013e2T S.
40 SoM -T-E
Address 4p40 rorZF_j2M,4Joo0 QD. W,ucl SlE2 1%Q• 22460Z
Property ID#
13
NAME
'SAND2A
+AMI'�2DSrc
Address j(D90 Se,vSENy (2x�, I�iNE�iEYf�F,Ctil�j 2Z�OZ
Property ID, (0
EDGAR- PRAKIL.Uy
2L Gr- F -MAN
Address Z33z USECLMu36i pjvZ W,KCKzsTlaL qA. ZZ6o3
Property IDS a
G2.rC&IWOoD 4 Ctc-A4M SFiT SL
P2oaeeq Oomcvz Assoc- , I NC.
Address 1854 M6AbcvjS r- De. W mem 4eStfc&, )A-. 2-2601
Property IDk (p5 E - CC -7))- OPEN �pP�E
TI�fc2GSA �,
CAMPf3F LL.
Address LOG MEADOto\I1Emn (21-. VA,. 22loO7,
Property
JO 1-1 N E
Mt TC I+ C- LL-
Address ZT- 1 Soy G" SWF MORT- VAS. ZZo.I Z
Property IDk 6 S E -( -7)) - 5-4S
,SoSEPtt 1L,
CU (ZTi Ni
Address [ko M �oulvlFcl� Cr Wi&A(KEgTk, !A-• ?-2loOZ
Property IDk 6 G -(C7)) - S-
ReBC-:CCA W.
CwU)Srz-2.
Address I b30 McAb"\41" (2 , Wi Nci4ev llaz 1iA. Zz�oZ
Property IDk (050-1-7))-S-43
)ZOC3�iLT S,
4(3
Address 1 t 4 MEADOW VIt✓W CT WINCh► SIV -JL VA- ?-ZlOo2-
Property IDk (oSE-(Ci))- S- 4Z -
AN 0, CONNifc N•
13AUSE2Mary
Address 11� MEAOo��i7 eT� 6lirNcSt$�Q�A�• 2260-.
Property IDk 5- 41
Ti MOTN� A.
71 NStAAM
Address 11 e> MEA DC)LOUcot�_ 0r. U3,kv4eSTu VAs. 22boZ
Property ID,O (os E -((7)) - S -4O
Ovuwrzzt PA2K
4(WE(Mk)NeCS Assoc,
Address �� c� boxSZS Wjmc++ESTEk q4. 21-4,03
Property ID,' SS p -(( 2)) - 39 A "A
TNO r\pks 0, GLA &�,
Address G4--1 1�p ST. CC1at2 De. w, KiC-4ES1CfL VA,, 22bo
Property IDS 5S-C(_A)) - 1 94
14
9 a I See 55 -(A) -196r
7
6 -� 39
5 X140 42
1�
4
3
2 1!" 41 43
n
2
A250-458
3
41 f
1B See 4
Jj42, 43 18
M ) 1 � ea o w1Q�k � 19
0 47 6 38 � 20
37 LJ 35 'A S3 0v49 �7
32 21
3,
29 (] � 36 6 22
35 23
34 24
2B Sec � C3�
* 33 25
Location Map for Saratoga
Meadows
PIN:
55-A-195
Master Development Plan
File # 007-94
7
rn
N
c0
6
I 25
j 19
5
1 1 24
C 23
"c.7
5 p
4
18
6
1 2 4 A S
i2
CO
G
13 12
4
3
22
3
17
16J
7 3
LnQ
z
��
14
11
\
\
2
74
15
10
9
L
2
21
115
P
58
16
a
8
,n
--S
1
17
1 � 20
L 8
1
19L
II2D
L�
21
—
22 23
24
co
L
O
M
57 17
� a 18
y
7
w
6
to
19
b
_
1 19
4
N
LO
L
205
21
4
9
16
15 14
13
11
\12
28
27
26
25
N
N 26
22
3
2
5
10
29
125
If
u�
f to
�
25 24 23
1
4
9
30
`t
`n
"' 3433
M 3 31 30 29 28 27
12
A
$
31
2
1
e �^j
3 Ats.
3
7
7
4 3
Um
LOLc1
Q
V CO
t
6
/
��
o
rn
Rt. 657
198
Senseny
Road
195
9A�8Pr
125A
9 a I See 55 -(A) -196r
7
6 -� 39
5 X140 42
1�
4
3
2 1!" 41 43
n
2
A250-458
3
41 f
1B See 4
Jj42, 43 18
M ) 1 � ea o w1Q�k � 19
0 47 6 38 � 20
37 LJ 35 'A S3 0v49 �7
32 21
3,
29 (] � 36 6 22
35 23
34 24
2B Sec � C3�
* 33 25
Location Map for Saratoga
Meadows
PIN:
55-A-195
Master Development Plan
File # 007-94
&
54-A- 125A
PC REVIEW: 12/07/94
PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 00$-94
WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY revised
LOCATION: The property is located on Westminster Canterbury Drive
off of Route 522.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 53 -A -63A; 53 -A -63B; 53-4-3-J; 53 -A -52B
PROPERTY ZONING ,& PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance)
Current Land Use: residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RP (Residential Performance) -
residential Current Land Use: vacant B2 (Business General) -
Current Land Use: vacant
PROPOSED USE: Completion of residential cottages
REVIEW EVALUATION•
Virginia Dept. of Trans ortation: Since the proposed
development will be accessed from a private street and all
planned streets are to remain private, this agency has no
comment.
Sanitation Authority:,No Comment.
Inspections Dept.: Building shall comply with the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 310 Use Group R
(Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993. Other
codes that apply are titled 24 Code of Federal Regulation,
Chapter 1; Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, Sections 2
through 5; 56 F.R. 9499-9515. Please note: Table 707.1, fire
and party wall fire resistant rating. Please submit
engineering information and details for sewer pump.
Fire Marshal: Hydrant located too far from curb line.
City of Winchester: No comments.
Engineering: We do not have any specific comments at this
time. A detailed review will be made at the time of the
subdivision plan submittal. The existing stormwater
management plan will be reviewed in conjunction with the
proposed development.
PLANNING & ZONING: A master development plan was approved
for Westminster Canterbury on August 14, 1991. The approved
plan called for the construction of twenty (20) duplex units.
Prior to the MDP approval on August 14, 1991, the Westminster
Canterbury facility consisted of an existing residential
complex which was constructed before the current MDP
requirements.
The applicant has submitted a revised master development plan
for this project. This revision calls for 6 additional duplex
units.
Lot Area Per Unit: The Zoning Ordinance contains various
square footage requirements for duplex units based on the
number of bedrooms in each unit. Although the applicant
indicates that they do not intend to subdivide, some
information needs to be provided to show that these square
footage requirements are being met.
Stormwater Management: The previous MDP contains a stormwater
detention facility. It appears that the proposed residential
units will increase stormwater runoff. The County Engineer
will have an opportunity to review detailed stormwater
management plans during the site plan process.
Access To Proposed Residential Units: In comments provided in
the previous MDP, staff was opposed to the location of the
connection to the existing Westminster Canterbury parking lot.
The curve where the road intersects the parking lot appears to
be the least desirable location for such a connection. The
proposed duplex units will be accessed through this least
desirable road connection.
Planning For Future Development: The nature of this project
site requires that the MDP reflect any proposed development.
Presently, 40.5 acres (84.9%) of this site does not contain
any future development proposals. If future development is
planned for any of this area, it would be beneficial to
include it on this MDP revision. Otherwise, future
development proposals will be required to again revise the MDP
as part of the development review process. Including any
future development proposals on current MDP revision will
eliminate the need for additional MDP revisions, saving the
applicant the time and the costs of the MDP review process.
Miscellaneous: The following items need to be present on the
plan:
1) A North arrow.
2 ) The topography on the MDP should be displayed at acceptable
contour intervals.
3) The use of all adjoining properties and the names of the
associated property owners.
4) The approximate acreage in common open space, in each use
and housing type, and in roads, streets, or right-of-way for
the total development.
5) The location of all environmental features within open
space areas and areas to be disturbed.
6) The amount, appropriate boundaries, and location of common
open space, with the percentage of the total acreage of the
site to be placed in open space.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR P/C MTG. OF 12/07/94- Approval,
contingent upon all staff and review agency comments being met.
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Frederick County
Virginia
Date: NoxJobz-=-� Application co
A^�s
OWNERS NAME: Shenandoah Valley Westminster -Canterbury
(Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest)
AGENT: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Inc
Address: 200 N. Cameron St, Winchester Va. 22601
Phone Number: (703) 667-2139
DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: same
Contact Name: Sternen M. Gvurisin
r�
Date: NoxJobz-=-� Application co
A^�s
OWNERS NAME: Shenandoah Valley Westminster -Canterbury
(Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest)
AGENT: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Inc
Address: 200 N. Cameron St, Winchester Va. 22601
Phone Number: (703) 667-2139
DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: same
Contact Name: Sternen M. Gvurisin
PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHECKLIST
9 _
'' fir. rf'�' �Y'}<J'\• �N; i
Nr-21 t:N,
The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in
insuring that all required information is provided and to insure
that all information is available to allow review by the County.
This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with
the master development plan. All required items must be provided
on the master development plan.
Background Information:
1.
Development's name:
Westminster -Canterbury
Cottages
Acres
2.
Location of property:
Westminster -Canterbury
Drive
off
Route 522
3.
Total area of
property:
65.0
Acres
4.
Property ID #
(14 Digit):
53
A 63A;53 A__63B;53 4 3 J;53 A 52B
5. Property zoning and present use: RP zoning; residental use
_(one parcel is being rezoned to RP concurrent with MDP)
6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: RP - residential
use; B2 - undeveloped; RP - undeveloped
7. Proposed Uses: Completion of residential cottages as planned
8. Magisterial District: Gainesboro
9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original Amended XX
General Information:
1. Have the following items been included?
North arrow
Yes
No
Scale
Yes
_X_
X_
No
Legend
Yes—.X_
No
Boundary Survey
Yes
No
Total Area
Yes_X_
_X_
No
Topography
Yes
No
Project Title
Yes_X_
_X_
No
Preparation and Revision Date
Yes—X—
No
Applicant Name
Yes—X—
No
2. Number of phases proposed? ONE (1)- As Planned
3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan?
Yes No—X-
4.
oX
4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated?
Yes—X— No
5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project
and all public roads within 2,000 feet.
Yes—X— No
6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes—X— No
7. Are environmental features clearly shown?
Yes—X— No
8. Describe the following environmental features:
Total Area % Disturbed Area in
Open Space
Floodplains
Lakes and ponds
Natural retention areas
Steep slopes (15% or more) 10.6 3.8
Woodlands 37.0 10.1
Common Open Space - 40.5 acres/84.9%
10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided?
YeS_X_NO
11. Have all historical structures been identified?
Yes X No
Residential uses
If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP,
(Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following
items should be completed.
1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed?
6 Duplex Residential Homes
2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in
each phase:
Open space acreage
Yes
X
No
Acreage in each housing type
Yes
X
No
Acreage in streets and right of ways
NA
X
No
Total acreage
Yes
X
No
Number of dwellings of each type
Yes
X
"
NY9.
Are the following
shown on
the
master
development plan?4'27
Street layout
Yes—X—
No
Entrances
Yes—X—
No
Parking areas
Yes
X
No
Utilities (mains)
Yes
X
No
10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided?
YeS_X_NO
11. Have all historical structures been identified?
Yes X No
Residential uses
If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP,
(Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following
items should be completed.
1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed?
6 Duplex Residential Homes
2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in
each phase:
Open space acreage
Yes
X
No
Acreage in each housing type
Yes
X
No
Acreage in streets and right of ways
Yes
X
No
Total acreage
Yes
X
No
Number of dwellings of each type
Yes
X
No
3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common
open space? 84.9%
8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required?
Yes No X
9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by
the plan with profiles or examples? Yes No
10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be
used?
Recreational Facilities
Yes
No
X
Energy Conservation
Yes
No
X
Pedestrian or Bikeway System
Yes
No
X
Underground Utilities
Yes
No
X
Street Design
Yes
No
X
4
Are
Z.
'`���
.
recreational facilities required?
Yes No
X
5.
What types of recreational facilities
are proposed?
The proposed develoment will utilize
existing
Westminster -Canterbury facilities
6.
Are separation buffers required?
Yes No X
7.
Are road efficiency buffers required?
Yes No X
8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required?
Yes No X
9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by
the plan with profiles or examples? Yes No
10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be
used?
Recreational Facilities
Yes
No
X
Energy Conservation
Yes
No
X
Pedestrian or Bikeway System
Yes
No
X
Underground Utilities
Yes
No
X
Street Design
Yes
No
X
11. How many bonus factors have been earned?
12. How will the bonus factors be used?
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS y
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of."the�,. /
public hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjo'i'n'in'g-1z')
property is any property abutting the requested property or,ti_he
side or rear or any property directly across a road from
quested property. The applicant is required to obtain the follow-
ing information on each adjoining property including the 14 digit
tax parcel identification number which may be obtained from the
office of the Commissioner of Revenue.
Name: Thomas J. & Shirlev J. Place
Address: 1109 Hickory Street Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53A 2 D 9
Name: Elton R. Fahnestock
Address: 1107 Hickory Street Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53A 2 c 18
Name: Kenneth J. & Satoka Catlett
Address: 1115 Oak Street Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53A 2 C 8
Name: Richard H. & Mildred I. Fo le
Address: 1108 Oak Street Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53A 2 B 4
Name: Foster L_ Couchman
Address: 1508 Darlington Drive Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53A 1 A 7
Name: Wayne J. Peacemaker
Address: 1067 _North Frederick Pike Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53A A 7
Name: Tudor S uare Homeowners Association
Address: 11 South Cameron Street Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53D 2 94 A/B
a,
Name :
Katherine P. Weber
Address: 8301 Robev Avenue Annandale Va 22003
Property I.D.#: 53 A 53
Name: Linden B. & Colleen F. Unger
Address: Rte. 2 Box 876 Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53 A 62
Name: Vallev Proteins Inc
Address: Rte. 2 Box 156 Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53 A 63
Name: Russell K. Heitt
Address: 900 Autumn View Lane Winche ter Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53 A 61A
Name: Russell 0. & Ann B. Hiett
Address: 930 Autumn View Lane Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53 A 61
Name: Walter L. & Marjorie K. Pugh
Address: 354 Wood Avenue Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53B 4 1
Name: North Frederick Realty
Address: 11 South Cameron Street Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 53B 4 20,2,3,4,5,6 ~'
*Name :
Kimberly d. & Isaac A. Keith
Address: 617 Old Fort Road Winchester, Va 22601 �`�,� I I,�* �Y,+/
Property I.D.#: 111 3 C 17
*Name: Pota Anton
Address: 610 Old Fort Road Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 111 3 E 16
*Name: William D. Willis
Address: 606 Old Fort Road Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 131 6 E 15
*Name: Hans Von Payr
Address: 540 Marion Street Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 131 6 E 14
*Name: Charles P. Rodgers
Address: 536 Marion Street Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 131 6 E 13
*Name: Dennis McLoughlin
Address: 532 Marion Street Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 131 6 E 12
* DENOTES PROPERTY IN CITY OF WINCHESTER
*Name: Thomas C. Gibbs Jr.
Address: 528 Marion Street Winchester Va 22601;=':
Property I.D.#: 131 6 E 11A �y t `✓
1
*Name: Herbert A. Wood, Jr
Address: 520 Marion Street Winchester, Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 131 6 E 9
*Name: Valley Proteins, Inc
Address: Rte. 2, Box 156 Winchester Va 22601
Property I.D.#: 132 1 4
* DENOTES PROPERTY IN CITY OF WINCHESTER
James Wooc
22�i High School
Rt. 739
NE...,RO IDISTRICT
G1entQWbe�`
2
52B 227-102
ry
M A �61
R6 Tj� 299
mow- j 6'-a 60
i
_63A�
rN1
M
63
�I
Sccle in Feet
300 600 900
',ocation Map for Westminster
PIN: 53—A -63A,
53—A-63
195
r�
53—A -52B,
53-4-3—J
195A
+.
B
ne
42
$
t 43
Q /Genf
41
302-320
44 45
u30�"
edOUbt Ln 40
254_ M
257-523
}42 O
35 29 .�
r5
Warner St.
32
38 37
27
4
47
263-567 367
26 22
t6 53
6
9 12 t Ln.
N 21
51 y0
8
0 —
,•�•1 o
g2 52A c
284-2a
257-49.-
ti
A 1
1-3
6 5
+z
of 66
- 2.'> ,
sze
64
4 -
Cor
p o, -o te-
NE...,RO IDISTRICT
G1entQWbe�`
2
52B 227-102
ry
M A �61
R6 Tj� 299
mow- j 6'-a 60
i
_63A�
rN1
M
63
�I
Sccle in Feet
300 600 900
',ocation Map for Westminster
PIN: 53—A -63A,
53—A-63
:anterbury Master Dev. Plan
53—A -52B,
53-4-3—J
P/C review date: 11/02/94
P/C review date: 12/07/94
REZONING APPLICATION 1008-94
JAMES CARROLL
To Rezone 2.81 Acres
From RP (Residential Performance)
To B2 (Business General)
LOCATION: From Interstate 81 approximately .75 miles east of the
City of Winchester, turn left onto Custer Avenue, property is
located at the intersection of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64A -4-20A, 64A -10-A, 64A -10-B
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance);
present use: vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential
Performance), present use: residential and vacant
PROPOSED USE: Business and Commercial
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virctinia Dept. of Transportation: See attached comments dated
09/28/94.
Fire Marshal: Hydrants must all be on designated fire lane.
(1) Will address specific fire department issues on site plan.
(2) Applicant should address fire and rescue impacts based on
County's computer model available from Planning Department
staff.
County Engineer: We have no comments at this time. However,
we reserve the right to perform a detailed review at the time
of a site plan submittal.
County Attorney: No comment.
PLANNING:
Location: The parcel is located within the Urban Development
Area, in close proximity to an interstate interchange. The
future land use map within the recently completed report on
Frederick County business corridors shows this area of Route
50 as being a business/office use. B-2 zoning would not be
out of line with this categorization.
Site Suitability: The parcel is relatively level with no
steep slopes or other environmentally sensitive features as
defined by the County's Zoning Ordinance.
Sewer and water are available to the parcel.
Potential Impacts: Impacts from the proposed rezoning would
not differ greatly from those that would be expected from
development under the current RP zoning of the property. The
traffic generated under B-2 zoning would be expected to be
greater than under RP, however, the difference as a percentage
of existing traffic would not be significant.
The applicant has proffered that there would be no entrance on
Etnam Drive and there would be a total of no more than five
entrances to the site. The applicant has not eliminated any
of the uses allowed under B-2 zoning.
The County's impact model forecasts a net fiscal gain to the
County withtheexception of a cost for the unfunded portion
of fire and rescue services which is forecasted at $1,947.25.
This amount is contrary to the applicant's impact statement
which forecasts the cost at $757.00. This difference appears
to be in part a result of the applicant generating a per acre
cost rather than a total for the entire 2.8 acres.
The cost for fire and rescue services under the current RP
(Residential Performance) zoning as forecasted by the model is
$648.80, with the cost difference being $1,298.45. The
applicant has not proffered a contribution to cover this cost.
Conclusion: The proposed zoning conforms to the proposed
future land use map developed by the Comprehensive Plans and
Programs Committee and proposed for adoption as a part of the
County's Comprehensive Plan. The County's impact model,
however, projects a cost to fire and rescue services which has
not been offset by the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDA'T'IONS FOR 11/02/94 PC MEE'T'ING: Denial, based on
the cost impacts to Fire & Rescue of the proposed zoning.
PC ACTION SUMMARY FOR 11/02/94 PC MEETING: The applicant revised
their proffer statement to include an increased emergency services
payment to Fire and Rescue that matched the County's impact model.
The applicant also presented a survey of the four lots proposed to
clear up any discrepancy on which lots were involved in the
rezoning.
15 residents of the Pembridge Heights Subdivision came forward to
speak in opposition. The residents spoke about the heavy traffic
in this area and felt the addition of a business at the entrance to
their subdivision would only add to their traffic problems. They
also felt that the existing access road to Route 50, Custer Avenue
(Rt. 781), was inadequate. A petition was submitted containing 199
signatures of residents of the Pembridge Heights subdivision who
were in opposition to the rezoning.
Mr. James H. Carroll, the property owner, said he had an informal
discussion with the Planning Commission at the time Pembridge
Heights was being developed, to ask if the Commission would grant
him commercial zoning if he gave the developers a right-of-way
through his property to Route 50. Mr. Carroll felt that the
Commission's feelings were favorable towards rezoning at that time.
The Commission felt that traffic was going to be a major
consideration at this location and that the intersection at Route
50 and Custer Avenue (Rt. 681) was dangerous. It was noted that
the applicant had offered no plans to modify the existing street
network. Commissioners pointed out that residential traffic would
have to pass through the proposed commercial area in order to get
to the residential area. Some Commissioners felt they could
support a B1 zoning or a B2 zoning, if intense uses were proffered
out; other Commissioners felt it was too late to put commercial
zoning here, since most of the homes in Pembridge Heights had
already been built and sold.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF 11/2/94- Tabled for 30 days or until
December 7, 1994 by unanimous vote. (Mr. Wilson was absent.)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 278
RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824
COMMISSIONER
WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TELE(703)984-5600
FAX(703)984-5607
VDOT COMMENTS TO REQUEST
FOR REZONING - JAMES CARROLL PROPERTY
09/28/94
No objections to the rezoning of this property from RP to B-2.
Commercial development of this property along with further development of the Prince Frederick
Business Park on the south side of Route 50 could have a significant impact on the adjacent
Route 50/781 intersection. Intersection improvements and possible signalization may be required to
accommodate additional traffic- The upgrading of Route 781 from Route 50 may also be necessary.
Prior to development a complete set of site plans which detail entrance designs, drainage
improvements and trip generation from the 1. TE. Mannal, 41h Edition will be required for review.
A storm water system will need to be provided to accommodate the existing drainage outfall ditch
and easement which crosses the property.
Any work performed on VDOT right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit.
VDOT Signature and Date: ems` �• `""��'�'"'"
xc.- Mr. S. A. Melnikoff
Mr. J. B. Diamond (FYI)
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
09/28/94
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
To be completed by Planning Staff.-
Zoning
taff
Zoning Amendment Number � V , - 9 Date Received
BOS Hearing Date I �` 2 PC Hearing 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, 23 Court Square, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: James H. Carroll c 'o Stephen C uri in
Address:-ilbert 4. Clifford k Associates Inc.
200 ei. Cameron Street, Winchester, VA 22601
Telephone: 70 -c6 -21 Fax; 665-0493
2. Representative:
Name: Scurle As Above
Telephone:
3. Owner:
Name:_Jaraes H. Carroll
c/o Stephen IM . ."yurisin
Address: Silbert W. Clifford -� Assoc., Inc.
200 N. Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Telephone: iO3-667-21
12
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:
James H. Carroll
4. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed
IM",
to
5. Current Use of the Property:
V
6. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER
64-Aw-Go00-01130
u4 -A00-0000-00130
c4-404-0000-00200
64A -0010-0001-20A +
USE
ZONING
acant
RP
Vacant
IIP
Residential
hP
Residential
RP
7. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from
nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
ApT.,roxi .ately .75 iles east of the City o-'
N inches ter at i-81. tw- j- th of R u to 50 east cn
R ute 70-1 at Pef%bri :�e hoad .
13
8. Parcel Identification:
14 Digit Tax Parcel Number: 64A 0004 0000 20 A
9. Magisterial District: Shawnee
10. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned.
Total Area: - 2.8132 Acres
The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted:
_ 2.8132 Acres Rezoned from 1.1 to B-2
Acres Rezoned from to
Acres Rezoned from to
Acres Rezoned from to
11. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed:
Conveyed from: fsuckley-Lazes, inc.Arcwnell, In:..
Deed Book Number_308 61 Pages o22/706
12. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses.
5usiness Y rL, jgrria1
13. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map
Plat X
Deed to property X
Statement verifying taxes paid X
Agency Comments X
Fees
Impact Analysis Statement X
Proffer Statement X
14
14. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Freder,, .
County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of
Fredcrick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for
site inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) 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) knowledze.
Applicant:
Owner.
Date: ?// /�?
15
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
8 of the application package.
The following information should be provided regardless of the type of rezoning:
Fire Service District: ;rePnwnoci
Rescue Service District: dreenwooa
Total Proposed Non -Residential Lots/Buildings: !N/'l
The following information should be provided with any residential rezoning:
Elementary School District: Armel
Middle School District: FredericK C_.unty
High School District: Janes Wood
Number of Single Family Dwellings Proposed:
Number of Townhouse Dwellings Proposed:
Number of Multi -Family Dwellings Proposed:
Number of Mobile Home Units Proposed:
NA
The following information should be provided with any commercial/industrial rezoning or with a
residential/commercial (P.U.D.) rezoning:
Gross Office Square Footage: There axe no specific uses or square
Retail Square Footage: foo tape ( axi u n or : inimum )
Restaurant Square Footage: planned at this time. A s to
Service Station Square Footage:-!evelopaent plan, in accord with all
Manufacturing Square Footage: Zon n.r reg ill at i nns t• i 1 1 be pre: areci
Warehouse Square Footage: at t181e of ?evelot,ient.
Hotel Rooms:
16
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
Owners of property adjoining the land proposed to be rezoned will be notified of the public hearing. For
the purposes of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property or any
property directly across a road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the
following information on each adjoining property including the 14 -digit property identification number
which may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Department.
Name
Address and Property Identification
1.
Address: 3792 ?- eloJy Lane
Ha erstown, [-_D
Euwar- x, iIiller, Et Al
Property ID: -4000-A00-0000-u1130
2.
Address: Rt. 6, Box 203
Ar:icli J. & Dottie Bartley
Winchester, VA 226.1
Property ID: 64010-004-0-,00-00200
3.
Address: 355 South R,to,-.ac Street
w inches ter Lu td•,,or
hagerstown, r,, 41610
Advert -
Property ID: 64000-A00-0000-001 i)
-
Address: 130 Etna; 'rive
"dwar:. F.,Jr. & r_ay L. Hunt
Winchester, VA 2602
Property ID: 64A-0010- 001-20A
5.
Address: 127 Etnam Drive
James T.
IIi & 1-lizabeth D.
" .inchester, VA 22602
Harman
Property ID: 64A-0 10-0001-183
6.
Address: 131 Stnam give
:,tichael & Shanncn 'Watson
Winchester, Vi: 22602
Property ID: 64A-00 i0-0001-184
7.
Address: 133 Etnam i -L ive
Jung i:hul & ,a,aie Hong Shin
Winche=ter, V, 22602
Property 64A-nijlo-0; of -1
g
-.[-D:..-
Address: 104 . e�-:bri lge trive
co tt It . &Failte r . Clark
Winchester, Vii 22602
Property ID: 64A-0010-0001-001
9
Address: 106 e bridge Drive
Stephen W. Rhinehardt
6� inchester, VA 22602
Property IIS:64A-001(-0001-002
VA
AMENDMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
Planning Commission December 7, 1994
Board of Supervisors
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
#008-94 of JAMES T. CARROLL
WHEREAS, Rezoning application #008-94 of James T. Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres, located
at the intersection of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road, in the Shawnee District, and
designated by PIN 64A -4-20A; 64A -10-A; 64A -10-B, from RP (Residential Performance) to B2
(Business General); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on December
7, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this application on
1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this rezoning to be in the best
interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience, and in good zoning practice;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors,
That Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the
Zoning District Map to change 2.81 acres, designated as PIN #64A -4-20A; 64A -10-A; 64A -10-
B, from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) as described by the application
and plat submitted, subject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the
applicant and property owner:
PROFFER (Revised) i�?r t`J;•.. !:3.t;` -,` -'"'
CARROLL REZONING REQUEST
CASE NO. 008-94 `'`^ `✓
I, the undersigned, JAMES H. CARROLL sole owner of the land to be
rezoned under zoning request number 008-94, referred to as the Carroll Rezoning
and the applicant for said rezoning, hereby voluntarily proffer the following
conditions. The conditions proffered shall be binding upon the heirs, executors,
administrators, assigns, and successors in interest of the undersigned. In the
event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants said rezoning to B-2
(Business General) and accepts these conditions, the following proffered
conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set
forth in the Frederick County Code:
1. There shall be no entrance to the property on Etnam Street.
2. There will be a total of no more than five (5) entrances for the property.
3. The Owner proffers a payment shall be made to the County for
emergency services in the amount of $1,950.00, said payment to be made at
time of building permit issuance by the County.
James H. Carroll
Date
This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard G. Dick
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.
Jimmie K. Ellington
James J. Longerbeam
Robert M. Sager
This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Passed this _th day of 1994.
A Copy Attest
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
IMPACT ANAlLYSIS STATEMENT
FOR
REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF THE
JAMES H. CARROLL
PROPERTY
Shawnee Magisterial District
AUGUST 1, 1994
gilbert w, cli f ford & associates, inc.
200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601
7 l%3-667 -2139 w Fax: 703-665-04-93
,. ACTANALYSISSTATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY
AUGUST 1994
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L
SUMMARY
3
IL
INTRODUCTION
3
IIL
PLANNING ANALYSIS
4
• Site Suitability
• Adjoining Properties
• Zoning Review
IV.
TRAFFIC
5
V.
SEWAGE
6
VI.
WATER
6
VII.
DRAINAGE
7
VIII.
SOLID WASTE
7
DG
HISTORIC SITES
g
X.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
8
• Education
• Emergency Services
• Parks and Recreation
• Other
XI,
ENVIRONMENT
9
XII.
FISCAL
9
XIII.
OTHER
9
APPENDIX 70
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
for
James H. Carroll Property
I. Summary
'ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY
AUGUST 1994
The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to
evaluate the above referenced project in light of several major planning issues,
as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This
document is prepared in support of and in preparation to rezone the referenced
property from present Residential Performance (RP) to General Business (B-2).
The property is suited for General Business (B-2) zoning. There is a positive
fiscal impact. Current zoning requirements allow for adequate measures to
provide for buffers and screens that would mitigate any negative impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood. Neighborhood traffic impacts have been
minimized with proffers limiting entrances.
II Introduction
The 2.8132 acre property of James H. Carroll is located at the intersection of Route
781 and Pembridge Drive, just north of Route 50 and east, approximately .75
miles, of the City of Winchester corporate boundary at I-81. The property is
currently vacant and is divided by Pembridge Drive creating two parcels. Both
parcels are identified as tax parcel 64A -0004-0000-20A and are currently zoned
Residential Performance (RP).
General Business (B-2) zoning is planned for the property. The property is
located in the Urban Development Area is part of an interchange business area
and is part of a corridor area planned for future business. Preliminary site
development planning indicates that this site can support most General Business
(B-2) uses while providing adequate protection space for zoning buffer areas.
3
. .'ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
JAMES H CARROLL PROPERTY
AUGUST 1994
III. Planning Analysis
Site Suitability - The property has no site specific development limiting factors.
The property appears well suited for General Business (B-2) zoning use
development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes,
flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors.
Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation
Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 36 as
Weikert- Berks channery silt loams.
Prime Agricultural Soils.- The property does not contain any prime agricultural soils as
identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan.
Slopes - There are no steep slopes on this property. The topography is ideally suited for
General Business type development. Slopes generally range from 2% to 7% and elevations
range from 659 to 678 feet above sea level.
Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property. The property is generally well drained
and has no low lying wet areas that wetland vegetation that indicates the presence of a
wetland area.
Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property.
Flood Plain - The property is not located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plain
as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map number 510063-
00115B of the United States department of Housing and Urban Development Flood
Boundary map.
Adjoining Properties - Development impact concerns are primarily north of the
property where single family residential houses are located across Etnam and
Pembridge Drives. The impacts of the General -Business (B-2) uses on the
surrounding residential uses is greatly reduced through existing zoning distance,
setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations. A 35' building setback is
required, and; in addition, a 50' distance buffer is required with a full screen. A
proffer is suggested that restricts entrances/driveways on Etnam Drive and limits
the total rturnber of access points to five.
ri
1._ ACTANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY
AUGUST 1994
The adjoining property to the north is single family residential detached urban
houses part of Pembridge Heights subdivision, zoned Residential Performance
(RP). To the east is vacant open land zoned Residential Performance (RP) and
currently undeveloped. To the south is State Route 781, and to the west is a mix
of older single family, detached residential houses and vacant lots.
Zoning Review - The property is currently zoned Residential Performance (RP)
allowing by right a variety of housing types. Approximately four to eighteen
homes are permitted depending on the type of housing planned. Front yard
setbacks, buffers, screens and parking would be required under the RP zoning
codes. Driveways for each house would be permitted throughout the property.
Under the General Business (B-2) zoning regulations a variety of office and
service uses are permitted. Approximately 12 to 15 % or about 18,000 square feet
of the site may be used for business structures, the remainder of the property
would be used for parking and required open areas such as buffers and storm
management. The B-2 floor area to lot ratio is 1.0. The minimum landscaped
area is 15% or about 18,000 square feet. The maximum height of any building is
35 feet. Required setbacks are 35 feet.
The impacts of the General -Business (B-2) uses on the surrounding residential
uses is greatly reduced through existing zoning distance, setback, buffer,
landscaping and screening regulations.
IV. Traffic Impacts
Traffic impacts are negligible for this property. Impacts of vehicular access and
turning movements on the residential area north of the property have been
removed with the proffer that eliminates all vehicular entrances on Etnam
Drive.
The estimated 16,500 square feet of retail floor space created by this property will
result in approximately 210 trips per weekday of traffic. based on ITE Trip
Generation figures. The subject project will not originate trips since trip
generation is a function of residential use. By removing the approximate 3 acres
of land from residential performance and considering 2.5 dwelling units per acre
density for single family, which is the adjacent use, the increase is only 125 trips
per day.
5
ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY
AUGUST 1994
Most traffic would enter the site via Route 781 and Route 50. The site is ideally
suited for access at the junction between Pembridge Drive, State Route 781 and
U.S. Route 50. Most of the traffic using the site will use U.S. Route 50 and VA
Route 781. The increase on both these roads of 10 trips per hour is negligible.
V. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts
There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems with this property.
The sewage from this property will connect with the regional interceptor system
at Route 50 and be pumped to the Opequon Regional Facility. Flows generated
from this complex are estimated by the State Health Department at 3300
(200gpd/1000SF) gallons per day with an instantaneous flow at peak of 6 gallons
per minute. All sewage conveyance systems involved have full capability to
handle this additional flow, as does the plant have the capability of treating and
discharging this flow in satisfactory manor.
It should be pointed out that by right, that 7 units of development available on
this property under current zoning would produce 3,000 gallons per day of
wastewater.
VI. Water Supply Impacts
There are no water supply or transmission problems for this property.
This property would connect to the existing 8" water supply system located in
Pembridge Heights. There are no known limitations in the water system which
would preclude the use of the property as shown. The property will utilize the
same amount of water as projected in sewage flow or 3300 gallons per day.
Fire protections measures such as the installation of fire hydrants will be
addressed at the site development planning stage. The installation of fire
protection hydrants poses no problems. The installation of fire hydrants on the
property will improve the fire protection means of the surrounding properties as
well.
.PACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
JAMES H. CARROL.L PROPERTY
AUGUST 1994
VII. Drainage Facility Impacts
Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal or no site
drainage impacts.
The development of commercial in lieu of residential will increase run off in
small amounts over that which would be created in residential use. It is
recommended that either suitable green space be allowed to reduce run off
amounts or that the increased run off would be reduced prior to discharge from
the site. In lieu of the above, additional storm water detention calculations
should be presented with final design which would show no adverse impacts
created by the imposition of this increase storm water on the existing
downstream water course.
Drainage flows generally toward State Route 781 and Route 50, crossing under
Route 50 to the south -side of the road. Predevelopment runoff rates will be
maintained using recognized storm water management standards.
VIII. Solid Waste Cost
There are no solid waste collection and disposal impacts.
Solid waste will be exported by contract hauler at no cost to the County. No
additional solid waste facilities will be required to handle the waste from this
property. Impacts to the County will be reduced with the planned B-2 rezoning.
Under the current RP zoning and assuming 7 housing units on the property, the
estimated cost of $1400.00 for solid waste disposal impacts is needed. The
planned B-2 zoning change would result in a reduction of impacts since there
would be no collection fees and since tipping fees are designed by the County to
cover the expenses of solid waste disposal.
7
ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY
AUGUST 1994
IX. Historic Impacts
This project will not involve the loss of any historic buildings, sites or artifacts
that are known.
The area has been significantly developed on all sides and no such findings of
historic importance has been identified. There are no structures currently
located on this property. A review of the National Register, the Virginia
Landmarks Register and The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates
that there are no known historic structures or sites on this property.
X. Community Facilities
The property when zoned B-2 will generate tax revenues with a net worth of
approximately $60.00 per square foot and a tax base of $990,000 which totals at a
tax rate of $.60 approximately $594.00 per year of tax revenue.
Education - This project will generate no school children and therefore have no
effect on educational cost in Frederick County. Capitol cost impacts for school
age children will be reduced since no school children will result with B-2 zoning.
The current zoning of RP, with 7 units would produce about 7 school age
children.
Parks and Recreation - This project would result in no impact on Parks and
Recreational facilities.
Emergency__Services Cost - There are no additional fire, rescue or sheriff facilities
anticipated with the development of the property using B-2 type uses.
Fire protection is available from the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company. The
planned B-2 rezoning will have all required site development standards required
by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no fire protection
problems associated with this property. All hydrants .and fire protection
measures will be installed when the property is developed.
Rescue services are provided by the Winchester Rescue Squad with future
service from the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company.
8
ACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
JAMES H. CARROLL PROPERTY
AUGUST 1994
Sheriff Department services protection will be required by this facility. Routine
patrols of the Pembridge area should suffice for the majority of time and
materials necessary to cover this facility.
XI. Environmental Impacts
There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity
including run off sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be
minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental
protection. A minor increase in run off quantity and a decrease in quality is
probable from this development. The effects on the down -stream impoundment
and stream are minimal and in accordance with local and state regulations.
There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project.
There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be
effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected. A
minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for security and
business use. These should be closely controlled during planning stage to
minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent residential structures and impacts on
the traveling public.
XII. Fiscal Impacts
Fiscal impacts for the property are determined based upon the fiscal impact
model prepared by the Frederick County Department of Planning and
Development staff. The model assumes 16,500 square feet of retail floor space.
The square footage assumption figure may change, but should have no
significant influence on the model output.
XIII. Other
This planned zoning change would create a positive fiscal impact as compared to
the existing zoning. There are no known other impacts.
Q
4F
Mefid
6 W,nchesie, fis;-
H igbts
41
r
s1kena sh
J
$
w
lank
or L
fNrERC
J
ter
0.1
A.1
L
4�'
Pro
77,
ale
C-- E)w Valley 't
I
miff Club
—V —
L f
4:nches!er Mun.C.paf
pc,
712. 4P ta'4'
fN
A—
Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates
200 N. Cameron Street I- PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
Winchester, Virginia, 22601
703-667-2139
2. BOUNDARY SURVEY
PEWRIDGE HEIGHTS — PHASE I
Lot 153
Parcel 9' Parcel A"
W
N/F JAMES H. CARROLL o 1
Bartley i TTA ins 64A (4) 3 1
PCL 20A
CQ
0:1z'
10' Temporary Construction Easement
?11
10Permanent Water Easement
NOTES:
1. No Title Report furnished.
2. Boundary information was taken from
Public records and not field verified.
11 dF
z S. W. MARSH Z
O CERTIFICATE NO. ,
11) 1843 .1
VA. SEC. R TE. 781
N/1-
Edward K AlMer
PLAT SHOWING
10' PERMANENT WATER EASEMENT
and 10' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
through the land of
JAMES H. CARROLL
DB 622 — Pg 308
to be acquired by
FREDERICK COON TY SANT TA TION A U THORI TY
Shawnee Adogisteriol District
Frederick County, Virginia
DATE: Auqust 1992
gilbert
ENGINEERS
150—C Olde Greenwich Drive
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
(703) 898-2115
I SCALE: 1"=100' I Plot No. 9354—IX-1
w. Clifford & associates, inc.
— LAND PLANNERS -- SURVEYORS
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(703) 667-2139
iI U
Apl
i PE�IBR/OG�c DicY kp
SI/-�� ;.L' •E _777 (7'7� .', J" .(.'%✓ ,� +` \�
611 f
i� \ `0'b'�7\6 is `�- .• 'f(1� a � f :•fin CeL. ��� ^(�
Y �
llyye�'' �,v� �r w; � t ,�i, a r � ��-t v. • • fL
a; r
O V�� � n S3 > •i.. r^ �3.
Q
LIN
V1
LIr
- .�'Icl• a �1
PEJ�1B!?/DQE NE/GNTS —PHASE .I
3. RE( -,,RDED SUBDIVISION PLAT
Sf��/�nEE LyslRICr
F (EOE/Ci Cn COUNTY V//C G/N/A
CCI COCA , /763
,�',�f1�17N pF•►,k
�Y
c.zl�
cY"lbixr 'fr
r +1
Ito. 1662
�y SUV
PACIULLI, SIMMONS 8 ASSOCIATES, LTD.
305 S. Harrison Street, Suite 200, Lccst)urv, Virninl:; 22075
70'1-717-27:; 173-1015
PROFFER (Revised)
CARROLL REZONING REQUEST
�E5
CASE NO. 008-94
I, the undersigned, JAMES H. CARROLL sole owner of the land to be
rezoned under zoning request number 008-94, referred to as the Carroll Rezoning
and the applicant for said rezoning, hereby voluntarily proffer the following
conditions. The conditions proffered shall be binding upon the heirs, executors,
administrators, assigns, and successors in interest of the undersigned. In the
event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants said rezoning to B-2
(Business General) and accepts these conditions, the following proffered
conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set
forth in the Frederick County Code:
1. There shall be no entrance to the property on Etnam Street.
2. There will be a total of no more than five (5) entrances for the property.
3. The Owner proffers a payment shall be made to the County for
emergency services in the amount of $1,950.00, said payment to be made at
time of building permit issuance by the County.
James H. Carroll
Date//- a//- -9�
yoo
a
PEMBRIDGE HEIGHTS PHASE I
EiA1,Vy _ STREET
Fire Rescue
New Capital Costs Not $105 $652
Covered by County
Contributions
---------------------------------
Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates
200 N. Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia, 22601
703-667-2139
5. FREDERICK COUNTY
IMPACT MODEL REPORT
Costs Credit
Costs
Impact
Fire Department
Rescue Department
Elementary Schools
Middle Schools
High Schools
Parks and Recreation
$20
$121
$0
$0
$0
$0
$144
$12,998
$773
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
-------------------------
$141 $185,189
$13,915
$0
FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM
-----------------
Fire Rescue
New Capital Costs Not $105 $652
Covered by County
Contributions
---------------------------------
Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates
200 N. Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia, 22601
703-667-2139
5. FREDERICK COUNTY
IMPACT MODEL REPORT
Location Map for PIN: 64A -4-20A
James Carroll Rezoning #008-94
Gene P. Koepfler
Ta1�pYione 703-662-6995
203Pambrid Fax 703-662-0342
ga Drive
Wd-M= ter VA 22602
November 17, 1994
George L. Romine
Westminster Cantebury, Box 104 Cottage Drive
Winchester VA 22603
Dear Mr. Romine,
I am writing to you as a Home Owner in The Pembridge Heights Sub Division.
Located just East of the 1-81/Rt. 50 interchange. As you are aware there is a request
being made by James Carroll to change the zoning of two parcels of land located on
the corners of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Drive from residential to commercial B2.
These Parcels form the Main Entrance to both Pembridge Heights and Miller Heights.
I am concerned about this rezoning request for several reasons;
Traffic: There is no way that our little streets (tar and chip covered) can handle the
additional traffic that a commercial venture would bring.
Safety: I have four children that routinely use our streets to visit their friends in
our neighborhood. We have no provision for bike/walking paths. There are no side
walks and because of the drainage ditches along the sides of the roads there is no
option but to walk/bike on the street itself. Adding a commercial venture to our
community is a sure recipe for disaster.
Property Value: I believe that rezoning the entrance to a residential area to
commercial would drastically lower my property values and the value of the
community as a whole. The small bit of revenue that the county would pick up
would be greatly off set by the lowering and suppressing of values of some 300
homes in that area.
Personal: I purchased a home in the Pembridge Heights area because there was no
commercial venture located within it. We have a homeowners association for that
reason, to maintain the integrity and community flavor of our neighborhood. I
believe that rezoning would destroy our neighborhood and invalidate the reasons
that I moved here.
Area Growth: While I think it is wonderful that our area is growing I do not see it
as inevitable that every square foot of Frederick county be turned into a commercial
venture. What good is a strong base of commerce if you don't have a viable
community to go with it. Look at Wash. DC as prime example of where that can
lead.
In Summary I ask that you weigh the desire of one individual (Mr. Carroll) to
make profit in a community that he doesn't even live in, to the needs and desires of
myself and all of the residents in our community who will have to live with such a
rezoning. Please reject any effort to rezone.
Please Note that this is my personal letter to you , not as a representative of
The Pembridge Heights Homeowners Association, but as a home owner and resident
of Frederick County. I am sure that you will be bombarded by letters and requests in
this matter and I ask that you consider each on its own merits.
Thank You for your time and interest. Please feel free to contact me at the
numbers above if you need any additional information.
Sincereley,
Gene P. Koepfler
PO Box 1980
Winchester, Virginia 22604
703/665-9100
November 7, 1994
County of Frederick
Department of Planning and Development
Winchester, Va
To Whom It May Concern:
American
Woodmark
ILmj Corporatiow
I am writing this letter to voice my STRONG opposition to the rezoning application #008-94 to
rezone 2.81 acres from RP to B2. This property is directly across from my home, which is now on
the market to be sold. When I bought this property, I was specifically told that the property was to
remain as a water runoff area for the neighborhood, and that it would never be built on. Since my
home faces this property, the new view outside my front windows would be the rear of a business
operation in the middle of a residential neighborhood. This is completely unacceptable.
Had any of the home owners in Pembridge Heights been made aware of the possibility of that land
being rezoned, then when could have made an informed decision regarding our purchase. With the
property being so close to my home, it was a sincere concern of mine. However, I and many others,
were reassured by the real estate agent of the use of that land, and that it was to remain untouched.
For this very reason, our neighborhood will not accept this offer, and wholeheartedly urge you to
deny this application.
You may reach me at: 8304 Woodford Bridge
Charlotte, NC 28216
Most Sincerely,
Shannon Watson
131 Etnam St.
Winchester, Va 22602
October 31, 1994
Frederick County Zoning Committee
9 Court Square
Winchester, IVa 22601
Dear Committee Members,
I am writing this letter to express both mine and my husband's strong opposition
to the request for Rezoning the property located at the front of Pembridge Heights
subdivision from residential to business. We are unable to attend the meeting being held
November 2, 1994, and have asked one of our neighbors to present this on our behalf.
We strongly oppose the rezoning because it is not necessary. There could be no
additional business located on that property that would be of benefit to any of the
residents of Pembride Heights subdivision. As noted in the letter you sent to several
property owners, this parcel of property that has applied for rezoning is located. 75 miles
from Interstate 81. 1 have personally driven this section of highways on a daily basis for
the past 4 1/2 years and can not give my personal support for any additional business
rezoning or building within that radius. At the present time, there are at least 4 major
motels1hotels, 7 food service businesses„ 4 convience/gas station businesses, 1 major
shopping center ( with numerous businesses that include a grocery store, department
store, movie theater, furniture store, and more), 1 small shopping center, 1 bank, 1 car
dealership, I motorcycle delearship, 1 church, a car wash and just recently added, the
only entrance and exit from the Corp of Engineers office complex.
Why should the aproximately 300 to 400 homes located behind this business
section have to contend with additional rezoning. There are few if any needs any of these
residents would have that could not be met by the businesses already located within that
.75 mile radius, and if one would only drive about the same distance once crossing over
Interstate 81, they would encounter our major shopping mall, Wal Mart, Toys R Us,
Lowes, Martins, numerous hotels1motels, numerous fast food restaurants, the City Park
and a University, just to mention a few. We are all aware that there are many other
businesses located within these areas.
The traffic situation is already busy and dangerous for the main entrance to our
subdivision. We have no turning lane provided into our subdivision when headed North
on 17150. One was recently constructed to turn into the Con p of Engineer entrannce exit,
but that consideration was not given to our subdivision. The speed limit has been
Towered since this summer to 35 mph, but I can guarantee that it is not heeded by ally of
the Tractor Trailers and cars barreling towards the interstate.
Please consider all of us who are residents, tax payers and citizens of Frederick
County when making your decision on this rezoning request. We do not need, nor can we
support any additional business rezoning around Pembridge Heights Subdivision. With
all of these facts presented, we urge you to deny the rezoning request.
Sincerely,
OZw',� P,
Alison and Steve Mundy
124 Etnam Street
Winchester, Va 22602
703-665-9667
Partial listing of Businesses located within. 75 mile radius of proposed Rezoning
property at entrance to Pembridge Heights subdivision:
HOTELS/MOTELS. FOOD SERVICES:
Travelodge
Comfort Inn
Holiday Inn
Super Eight
GASICOATYENCE:
Texaco
Chevron
Shell
Exxon
OTHER BUSINESSES:
Cracker Barrel
Fritters
Jimmy's at the Holiday Inn
Hardee's
Chasson's
Belle Starr
Bagel Shop
Chinese -Minute Wok
Delco Plaza: Food Lion (grocery), Movie Theater, Video Rental, Furniture Store,
Department Store, Fitness Center, numerous small businesses
Bank
JoAnn Fabrics
Harley Davidson
GW Motors (car dealership)
Big Lots
Car Wash
Church
Entrance and Exit to Corp. of Engineers office complex
P/C review date: 12/07/94
REZONING APPLICATION 1009-94
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
To Rezone 17.8+ Acres
From RA (Rural Area)
To RP (Residential Performance)
LOCATION: The directions to this property are as follows: North
of Valley Mill Road (Route 659), proceed 3/4 mile East of Greenwood
Road (Route 656).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-176 & 55 -A -176B
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Area); present use:
vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential
Performance) and RA (Rural Areas) Zoning; and Residential and
Vacant Use
PROPOSED USE: Residential
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached comments dated
06/09/94.
Fire Marshal: See attached comment sheet dated 11/10/94.
Fire and Rescue: See attached letter dated 03/06/94.
County Engineer: We have no comments at this time. A
detailed review will be made at the time of the subdivision
design submittal.
County Attorney:f � �,
Proffers need � be mace by property owner.
Sanitation Authority: Water & Sewer to serve this property is
located on the adjacent property, Mill Race Estates. There is
adequate water & sewer capacity.
PLANNING:
Location: The property is located within the Urban
Development Area on the west side, and adjacent to Mill Race
Estates. Mill Race is zoned RP (Residential Performance) as
is the property to the north of the proposed rezoning. The
adjoining property to the west and south is zoned RA (Rural
Areas).
Site Suitability: The property has significant slopes with a
swale running along the north and eastern edges. Portions of
the site are wooded, and there are some steep slopes present.
Sewer and water are available to the site.
Access to the site is proposed through Mill Race Estates. Two
roads within Mill Race were stubbed for eventual extension to
this site.
Impacts: The applicant has proffered to limit the development
of the site to 32 single family dwellings. Using the ITE
standard of ten trips per day for single family residences, we
could expect in the neighborhood of 320 trips in and out of
the parcel once the site is fully developed. As is shown on
the Generalized Development Plan, all traffic would use Mill
Race Drive to enter or exit the development. A future
connection is shown to the west. There is no way of knowing
when or if this connection would become a reality.
The most recent traffic count on this stretch of Valley Mill
Road was 401 average daily trips in 1993. Therefore, another
320 trips per day could have a significant impact on the
intersection of Valley Mill Road and Mill Race Drive as well
as the Greenwood Road intersection.
The County's impact model projects a cost of just over
$145,000.00 not including the unfunded portion of the local
Fire Company budget. The applicant has proffered $3,142.00
per unit to be paid at the time of issuance of building
permits. For 32 units, this would amount to $100,544.00, or
roughly $45,000.00 which leaves some fiscal impacts of the
proposed rezoning uncovered.
The applicant has also proffered to pay $28.00 per lot
directly to the Greenwood Fire Company to offset the projected
impacts of the development. This amount would be paid in a
lump sum at the time of approval of the subdivision. As with
the proffer for impacts to the County's General Fund, this
leaves impacts to the Fire Company unaccounted for.
The County Attorney has noted that the proffers should be made
by the owner as opposed to the contract owner. If the
property is rezoned and the pending contract falls through for
some reason, the current or future owners would be bound by
proffers made by the applicant.
Zoning Ordinance requirements would limit the disturbance of
steep slopes and woodland areas. Stormwater management would
have to be addressed at the Master Development Plan stage.
Staff Recommendation for 12\07`94 Planning Commission Meeting:
Although the location of the site is within the UDA and adjacent to
property with existing residential use and/or zoning, the staff
would project that negative fiscal and traffic impacts would result
from the proposed rezoning. Staff recommends denial of the
application.
ma
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0. BOX 278
DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG, 22824 �' WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P.E.
COMMISSIONER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
June 9, 1994 TELE (703) 984-5600
FAX 17031984-5607
VDOT Comments to Wierman Rezoning Re uest
No objection to rezoning of this property. Before development, this office will require
a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and
traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual 4`h Edition for review. Any
work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit.
This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond
coverage.
The traffic generated by this project through Millrace Subdivision may warrant
improvements to the Route 659/1270 intersection. Also, Julee Street (Route 1272) in the
Millrace Subdivision was designed and constructed to the project's property line so the
street could be extended into the adjoining Wierman Tract in the future. At present Julee
Street is a "stub" street with no cul-de-sac or other suitable means to turn our
maintenance vehicles or county school buses around ir� . If the County does not require
the extension of Julee Street into the Wierman Tract, we strongly suggest the developer
be required to construct a cul-de-sac.
xc: Mr. Steve A. Melnikoff
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS (
Control No. 0606941406 Date Received 060694 Date Reai'�wed 061294
Y�
Applicant Name G. W. Clifford & Assoc.
Address 200 N. Cameron Street
Winchester VA 22601
Project Name Wierman Rezoning
Phone No. 703-667-2139
Type of Application Re -Zoning Current Zoning RA
1st Due Fire Co. 18 1st Due Rescue Co. 18
Election District Shawnee
RECOMMENDATIONS
Automatic Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler System X
Automatic Fire Alarm System X Other
Emergency Vehicle Access;
Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X
Fire Lanes Required; Yes No X
Comments
Roadway/Aisleway Widths;
Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X
Special Hazards Noted; Yes No X
Comments
- Continued -
Hydrant Locations; See Notes
Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X
Siamese Connection Location;
Approved Not Approved Not Identified X
Additional Comments: 1) -,Applicant must address impact to fire
and rescue resources. 2 Comments from the Greenwood Fire &
Rescue.Company are to be considered addendum to this comment
sheet. 3 At site lan sta e of development, osition hydrants
in such a manner that driveways for homes do not block hydrant
access. 4 Burning of site clearing debris requires a permit.
from the Fire Marshal's Office. 5) Burning of construction
debris on site is prohibited. 6)Temporarystreet signage is
required when construction begins and temporary street addresses
are re fired on each home as construction begins. 7 Access to
all structures must be maintained for emergency vehicles at all
times during construction.
Re �w Time_ hr.
j
Douglas A. Ki acofe
Fire Marshal
�ranwood voludeer Fire and JTC5,cuc C=Pjq , Inc.
P. 0. B= 3o-&-7
F 7-
^� �r
X41 .1,
Ronald A. Mislowsky
G. W. Clifford & Associates
200 N. Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Mr. Mislowsky:
Wixarsstm, Vir;t =601
March 6, 1994
The Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company disagrees
with your comments #9 Emergency Service Cost on the rezoning of
16 acres of land on the north side of Valley Mill Road.
Going from agricultural land to residential preformance with
approximately 35 lots for single family dwellings would greatly
affect the impact of fire and rescue. We know for a fact human
error is our biggest impact to create calls both fire and rescue.
With this in mind we suggest you check with the Frederick County
Planning Dept. and reconsider your fire and rescue proffer along
the lines they already have in place in their computer system.
We will not support any rezoning which denies fire and
rescue the proper attention for the added burden of incidents.
Therefore, we will openly oppose the rezoning of your application
10606941406 from RA to RP.
Sincerely,
Walt Cunningham, Asst. Chief
Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue
WC:jlc
cc: File
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA -
--------------------------------------------------
To
------------------------------------------------ To be completed by Planning Staff:
Zoning Amendment Number Date Received
Submittal Deadlines cr u
PC Hearing Date Q �i Application Dat C� G-
-� -- BOS Hearing Date1r y
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel numbers, tax map numbers, deed book pages and numbers
may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, 9
court Square, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: Gilbgrt W. Clifford & Associates Inc.
Address: 200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Telephone: 667-2139
2. Owner:
Name: Geor is Wierman Est. & Gerald Racey
Address: c/o Richard Baldwin 985 Valley Mill Road
3727 Sweetbriar Winchester, VA 22602
Pasadena TX 77505
Telephone:
In addition, the Code of Vircxinia 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:
5
y -
3. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property
be changed from RA to RP
4. Location: The property is located at (give exact drYect_Iona)
North of ValleMill Road (VA Route 659)'x'
3/4 miles east of VA Route 656 �_ =
5. Parcel Identification:
21 Digit -Tax Parcel Number: 55000A000000000001760
55000A00000000000176B
6. Magisterial District: Shawnee
7. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be
rezoned.
Total Area: 19-1/5 Acres
The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning
district category should be noted:,
17.8 ± Acres Rezoned to RP
Acres Rezoned to
Acres Rezoned to
Acres Rezoned to
Frontage: 650
Feet (not on State Route 659)
Depth: 1200 Feet
S. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by
the following deed:
Conveyed from: Wierman/Baldwin
Deed Page: 197 (Weirman) 489 (Racey)
Deed Book Number: WB h4
(Weirman) 192 (Racey)
P
H ' .
9. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be pu
the following uses.
Residential Lots
t to
1 '•i
10. checklist: Check the following items that have been included
with this application.
Location map
Survey or plat
X
Deed to property
X
- x—
Statement verifying taxes
X
Sign receipt
Agency Comments
X
Fees
x
Impact Analysis Statement
x
X
Proffer Statement
X
11. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby make application and
petition the governing body to amend the zoning ordinance and
to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia and do
hereby certify that the application and accompanying materials
are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant: Ron Mislowsk Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
Owner:
L -c
12. Representation:
r
Rac
S Geor is Wierman Estate
1
If the application is being represented by someone other than
the owner or application and if questions about the
application should be directed to that representative, please
list the following. r
Representative's Name:
to hen 'n. -,,nzr,�yn - r_ �Clzff�ra ?• Assoc.
Representative's Phone Number: 667-2139
7
Inc.
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of. -the -
public hearing. For the purposes of this application ".ad'oinin '
property is any property abutting the requested property'vn.the >
side or rear or any property directly across a road from the
requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the fol-
lowing information on each adjoining property including the
21 -digit tax parcel identification number which may be obtained
from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue.
Name
Address and Property Identification
1 James R. & Mary Killough
Address: 2282 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 55-A-175
2 Mark Ritchie
Address: 2270 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 55 -A -175A
3 Gerald Racey
Address: 985 Valley Avenue
Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 55 -A -176A
4 Kenneth Schuller
Address: 2138 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 55-A-177
5 Minnie Schuller Est.
Address: c/o Kenneth Schuller
2138 Valley Mill Road, Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 55 -A -178A & 178
6 William Schuller
Address: 140 Benny Lane
Winchester, VA 22601
Property ID • 55-A-179
7 Wilkins Development Corp.
Address: 7 South Loudoun Street
`.?inchester, VA 22601
Property ID: 55-A-180
8 Eastern Frederick Develop-
Address: P.O. Box 2097
ment Corp.
Winchester, VA 22604
Property ID: 55-A-181
9 Dale & Angela Cook
Address 516 Mill Race Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Property ID: 55G-3-79
10Steven Dickey
Address: Rt. 1 Box 2160
Berryville, VA 22611
Property ID: 55G-3-80 II
13
E
NameAddress
and Property Identificationf�f��
11 Charles Barr
Address: ttPl.
cheshesterr , VA 22602 /J!
Winchester,
Property ID: 55G-3-90
12 John & Jane McAllister
Address: Rt. 1 Box 198
Stephenson, VA 22656
Property ID: 55G-3-91, 92, 93
13 Keith Koontz
Address: 123 Julee Street
Winchester, VA 22602
Property ID: 55G-3-94
14
Address:
Property ID:
15
Address:
Property ID:
16
Address:
Property ID:
17
Address:
Property ID:
18
Address:
Property ID -
19
Address:
Property ID:
20
Address:
Property ID:
21
Address:
kProperty
ID:
Address:
22
Property
ID:
E
Location Map for
PIN;
55—A-176
& 176B
Valley Mill Estates
Rezoning
File
#
009-94
AMENDMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
Planning Commission December 7, 1994
Board of Supervisors
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
#009-94 of VALLEY MILL ESTATES
WHEREAS, Rezoning application #009-94 of Valley Mill Estates to rezone 17.8+ acres,
located North of Valley Mill Road (Route 659), proceed 3/4 mile East of Greenwood Road
(Route 656), in the Shawnee District, and designated by PINS 55-A-176 & 55 -A -176B, from
RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on December
7, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this application on
, 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this rezoning to be in the best
interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience, and in good zoning practice;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors,
That Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the
Zoning District Map to change 17.8 + acres, designated as PIN 55-A-176 & 55-A- 176B, from
RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) as described by the application and plat
submitted, subject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the
applicant and property owner:
gilbert w. clif ford & associates, inc.
200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601
703-667-2139 • Fax: 703-665-0493
C:7
November 22, 1994
Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director
Frederick County Planning Department
9 North Loudoun Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Valley Mill Estates
Dear Kris:
Eased upon our discussions and talks with Walt Cunningham I have made some revisions
to the impact analysis statement using a new format. Most of the information is the same,
just expanded with better fire and rescue comments. A copy is attached for your use.
Also attached is a revised proffer statement that reflects changes and has been sent to Jay
Cook's attention for further review. A breakdown of impacts by schools, parks and fire and
rescue is attached.
Finally, a copy of the overall road plan for the area is attached that shows how there will
eventually be a secondary road access not only to this project but to Mill Race Estates via
Pioneer Heights.
I have sent the road plan and updated information to Walt Cunningham covering the fire
and rescue concerns outlined in his attached letter. Should you have any questions, please
call Mr. Cunningham or myself. I believe we have addressed his concerns.
Sincerely,
gilbert W. Clifford & associates, inc.
r'
Stephen . Gyurisin
SMG/cls
at�ach ents
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER (Revised)
Weirman/Racey Properties
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
THE CAMERON GROUP
PrelirninaU Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 et. sea.. 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 approximately 19 acres from
RA Zoning District to the RP Zoning 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 be approved by the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such
rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever.
These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors or assigns.
General Development Pllpnn
The development of the subject property and the submission of any Master Development Plan
will provide for a street layout connecting with the Mill Race Estates Subdivision via Mill Race Drive,
and as shown on the attached Addendum "A" -Generalized Development Plan - Valley Mill Estates.
There will be no street connection directly to Valley Mill Road.
The rezoned property shall not be subdivided into more than thirty-two (32) lots and there
shall not be constructed thereon more than thirty-two (32) single family detached houses and no
apartments, duplexes or other multi -family buildings shall be constructed on the property.
Monelga ConWbution to Offsetbn fDevelopment
The undersigned, who holds a contract to purchase the above described property from Gerald L.
and Frances F. Racey and the Georgia Weirman Estate hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of
Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 19 acre tract, more or
less lying on the north side of Valley Mill Road just East of the intersection of Mill Race Drive in the
Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay
to Frederick County, at the time a building permit is issued for each lot, the sum of Three Thousand One
Hundred Forty-two Dollars ($3,142.00) (for Parks and Recreation Department, Schools, Fire and Rescue
Department and as otherwise directed by the County). In essence, the sum of Three Thousand One
Hundred Forty-two Dollars ($3,142.00) will be paid at the time a building permit is issued for each lot.
See addendum 'B" showning breakdown of impacts by category.
MonetaryCQpWbution to Offset Impact of Fire and Rescue
The undersigned, who holds a contract to purchase the above described property from Gerald L.
and Frances F. Racey and the Georgia Weirman Estate hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of
Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 19 acre tract, more or
less lying on the north side of Valley Mill Road just East of the intersection of Mill Race Drive in the
Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay
PAGE 2
PROFFER STATEMENT (Revised)
Weirman/Racey Properties
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
THE CAMERON GROUP
to the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company, Twenty-eight Dollars ($28.00) for each lot
approved for development on the Final Subdivision Plat. In, essence, the sum of Twenty-eight Dollars
($28.00)in payment will be made directly to the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company at the
time lots are approved for subdivision by the County.
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and
successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to
the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
Respectfully submitted,
CAMERON GROUP
Richard W. Pifer
Representative: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
Stephen M. Gyurisin
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
November, 1994, by Stephen M. Gyurisin of Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc.
Representative for the Applicants.
My Commission expires
Notary Public
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER (Revised)
Weirman/Racey Properties
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
THE CAMERON GROUP
ADDENDUM "A"
GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER (Revised)
Weirman/Racey Properties
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
THE CAMERON GROUP
ADDENDUM "I3"
GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
MONETARY IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT
BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS BY CATEGORY
SCHOOLS $ 2,600.00 PER UNIT
PARKS $ 541.00 PER UNIT
FIRE & RESCUE $ 28.00 PER UNIT
This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard G. Dick
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.
Jimmie K. Ellington
James J. Longerbeam
Robert M. Sager
This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Passed this _th day of 1994.
A Copy Attest
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
FOR
REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
RACEY/WEIRMAN PROPERTY
THE CAMERON GROUP - DEVELOPERS
Stonewall Magisterial District
November 10, 1994
gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc.
200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601
703-667-2139 • Fax: 703-665-0493
IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
SUMMARY
3
II.
INTRODUCTION
3
III.
PLANNING ANALYSIS
4
• Site Suitability
• Adjoining Properties
• Zoning Review
IV.
TRAFFIC
5
V.
SEWAGE
6
VI.
WATER
6
VII.
DRAINAGE
7
VIII.
SOLID WASTE
7
IX.
HISTORIC SITES
g
X.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
g
• Education
• Emergency Services
• Parks and Recreation
• Other
XI,
ENVIRONMENT
9
XII.
FISCAL
9
XIII.
OTHER
10
APPENDIX 11
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
for
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
I. Summary
IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to
evaluate the above referenced project in light of several major planning issues,
as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This
document is prepared in support of and in preparation to rezone the referenced
property from present Rural Area (RA) to Residential Performance (RP).
The property is suited for Residential Performance (RP) zoning. There is a fiscal
impact. Current zoning requirements allow for adequate measures to provide
for adequate design and planning measures creating a residential neighborhood
that incorporates features compatible with the surrounding neighborhood while
maintaining the environmental features of the area. Neighborhood traffic
impacts have been minimized with proffers limiting entrances.
II Introduction
The 19 +/- acre site, properties of Gerald Racey and the Georgia Weirman Estate,
herein referred to as Valley Mill Estates, is located on the north side of Valley
Mill Road (VA Route 659), east of Greenwood Road (VA Route 656). The
property is currently vacant and is divided into two parcels with limited frontage
on Valley Mill Road. Access is via the planned stub streets of Mill Race Drive
and Julee Street of Mill Race Estates. Both parcels are identified as tax parcel 55
((A)) 176 and176B consisting of 15.92 acres and 5.31 acres respectfully.
Residential Performance (RP) zoning is planned for the property. 19.35 acres is
planned for rezoning into the RP District. 1.85 acres of the two parcels will
remain Rural Area (RA) and will later be added to the Racey parcel. The
property is located in the Urban Development Area and has sewer and water
service available. Preliminary site development planning indicates that this site
can support the residential development proposed.
3
IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
III. Planning Analysis
Site Suitability - The property has no site specific development limiting factors,
however, the slope of the site may limit the disturbance of some areas. The
property appears well suited for Residential Performance (RP) zoning use type
development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes,
flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors.
Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation
Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheets 31 and
37 as Clearbrook channery silt loams.
Prime Agricultural Soils.- The property does not contain any prime agricultural soils as
identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan.
Slopes - There are areas of steep slopes on this property. The topography is ideally suited
for Residential type development. Slopes generally range from 2% to 15% and elevations
range from 580 to 650 feet above sea level. Slopes are suitable for residential development.
Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property. The property is well drained
and has no low lying wet areas that provide wetland vegetation or that indicates the
presence of a wetland area.
Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property.
Flood Plain - The property is not located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plain
as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map number 510063-
00120B of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood
Boundary map.
Adjoining Properties - Development impact concerns are primarily east of the
property where single family residential houses are located at the existing Mill
Race Estates. The impacts of the Residential Performance (RP) zoning district
uses on the surrounding residential uses is minimal since the uses are the same.
A proffer is suggested that restricts access on Valley Mill Road thereby reducing
the impact of another street intersection, that would reduce road efficiency. All
local vehicles accessing this development would utilize an existing, established
street network.
4
IMPACT ANAL YSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
The adjoining property to the north is zoned Residential Performance (RP) and
is vacant. To the east is single family homes on land that is zoned Residential
Performance (RP) and currently developed. To the south is State Route 659, and
to the west is vacant undeveloped land typical to the area, zoned RA.
Zoning Review - The property is currently zoned Rural Agricultural (RA)
allowing by right a variety of rural and agricultural uses including large lot
residential homes. Approximately four to five homes are permitted depending
on the lot size planned. Permitted homes could be served by private on-site
water and sewer systems
Under the RP zoning, master planning requirements would address all
environmental concerns such as steep slopes and woodland. Additionally,
street, utility and lot layout will be determined. RP zoning allows a number of
housing types from large lot single family residential homes to garden
apartments. Proffers allowed as part of the zoning process allow the housing
type to be determined prior to master planning design. Single family residential
homes are planned to be proffered. The site can adequately support 35 to 45
single family homes, approximately 21 homes are anticipated based on a large lot
size of over 15,000 square feet per home.
IV. Traffic Impacts
Traffic impacts are negligible for this property. Using current RA zoning density
almost 50 trips per weekday would be generated from this property.
Assuming 30 homes can be developed on this site, the average trip generation at
build -out of Valley Mill Estates is almost 300 based on a weekday average per
home of 9.55 trips derived from ITE Trip Generation standards. Fewer homes on
larger lots would result in less trips. For the sake of evaluation for this rezoning
30 homes will be used as a base.
Four to six p.m. peak hour average trip generation per home is 1.01 base on ITE
Trip Generation standards. Using 30 homes the average trip generation for the
four to six p.m. hours is 30 trips when the entire development is built -out.
The access street connection is planned to be through the existing planned street
stub connection of Mill Race Estates on Mill Race Drive to Valley Mill Road (VA
Route 659). Based upon the most recent Virginia Department of Transportation
5
IMPACT ANAL YSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
(VDOT) traffic counts, Valley Mill Road (VA Route 659) has a current traffic
loading of 300 trips per day.
A detailed trip analysis study is necessary as part of the Master Planning design
and plans to determine if improvements to the connection at Valley Mill Road
(VA Route 659) are required for construction. This study will be based on the
actual number of homes planned. Preliminary rezoning evaluations indicate
that Mill Race Drive and the connection at Valley Mill Road (VA Route 659) are
adequate to meet additional traffic via the existing planned stub street
connections.
V. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts
There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems with this property.
Sewage service to this site is provides by the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority. The flows generated from the project are projected to at total build-
out by the State Health Department at 14,000 (400 gpd/home) gallons per day
(gpd) with an instantaneous peak flow of 24.3 gallons per minute. The actual
flows based on the consultants' experience with projects of the same
characteristics in the area are projected to be about one-half of the above
projection or 7,000 gpd.
Sewage would flow by gravity to to a pump station located at the end of julie
Street then be pumped to the existing 8" inch sewer line on Julie Street, then by
gravity to the existing 30" Abrams Creek interceptor then to the Opequon Water
Reclamation Facility. All sewage conveyance systems involved have the capacity
to carry the additional projected flow. The Opequon Water Reclamation Facility
currently has the capacity of treating and discharging this flow in a satisfactory
manner.
VI. Water Supply Impacts
There are no water supply or transmission problems for this property.
This property would connect to the existing 8" water supply system. An 8" water
main currently exists for planned system expansion at two places along the
easternmost property boundary of Mill Race Estates. Water service is provided
by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. There are no known limitations
D
IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
in the water system which would preclude the use of the property as shown. The
property will utilize the same amount of water as projected in sewage flow.
Water service is planned to be extended to connect with future planned water
systems to the west and north of Valley Mill Estates.
Fire protections measures such as the installation of fire hydrants will be
addressed at the site development planning stage. The installation of fire
protection hydrants poses no problems. The installation of fire hydrants on the
property will improve the fire protection means of the surrounding properties as
well as the enhancing the protection of the property. The fire fighting
capabilities of the fire company covering this area will be enhanced with
additional fire hydrants. Under current RA zoning this property could be
developed without any fire hydrant protection measures.
VII. Drainage Facility Impacts
Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal or no site
drainage impacts.
The development of residential uses as planned increases runoff to a lesser
extent than does apartments, commercial or industrial type uses. The
development of large lot single family homes instead of the existing rural,
vacant use will increase runoff factors over that which now exist -the proposed
zoning increases the amount of impervious surface impacting the runoff
coefficients and times of concentration. It is recommended that suitable yard
area be allowed to reduce run off amounts. Additional storm water detention
calculations will be presented with preliminary and final subdivision design
which would show no adverse impacts on the existing downstream water
course.
The property is located on the southern side of a low ridge with swales allowing
drainage run-off flows generally from a north to south pattern. Drainage flows
generally toward Valley Mill Road (VA Route 659) to Abrams Creek and
eventually to the Opequon Creek. Predevelopment runoff rates will be
maintained using recognized storm water management standards.
VIII. Solid Waste Cost
There are minimal solid waste collection and disposal impacts.
7
IMPACT ANAL YSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
Costs to the county would be normal for this type of development. No
additional solid waste facilities will be required to handle the waste from this
property. Waste removal from house to house is available by private contractor
at the owners option. All disposal for waste generated by the residences is
anticipated to be taken to the County Landfill site for disposal.
IX. Historic Impacts
This project will not involve the loss of any historic buildings, sites or artifacts
that are known.
There are no structures currently located on this property. A review of the
National Register, the Virginia Landmarks Register and The Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are no known historic structures or
sites on this property.
X. Community Facilities
The property when zoned will create local and fiscal impacts typically associated
with a residential development in this area. Impacts are limited due to the size
and type of housing
Education - For the sake of projection a 30 home build out will be used. As stated
earlier the property will support between 35-45 homes although at this date only
21 homes are planned. The number of school age children projected to live in
the development at full build out, based on 30 homes, is approximately 10
children. This figure is based upon County averages per single family home of
.335 children per home. Costs associated are impacts based upon the number of
children and the impact on the capitol school costs per unit or per home. Capitol
costs are generated by the County impact model for the school age group.
Parks and Recreation - This project would result in a minor impact on Parks and
Recreational facilities. Large, over 15,000 square foot lots are planned allowing
for adequate on site recreational areas for each home. No additional recreational
will be required to serve the recreational needs of the residences of the
development. Impact costs associated with this project are projected using
County impact modei standards.
Emergency Services - There are no additional fire, rescue or sheriff facilities
anticipated with the development of the property. The development will
8
IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
provide fire protection hydrants in an are currently not covered with this type of
protection under RA zoning. Impact costs associated with this project are
projected using County impact model standards.
Fire protection is available from the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue
Company. The planned RP rezoning will have all required site development
standards required by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no
fire protection problems associated with this property. All home construction
will use the latest required building code fire protection enhancement building
features. All hydrants and fire protection measures will be installed when the
property is developed.
Rescue services are also provided by the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue
Company. Impact costs associated with this project are projected using County
impact model standards.
Fire and Rescue services protection will be required for the homes of this
development. To date, in 1994 the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue
Company has had 982 calls for fire, rescue and public service assistance. Because
of the additional homes planned as part of this project additional fire and rescue
assistance calls are anticipated.
Sheriff Department services protection will be required by this development.
Routine patrols of the area should suffice for the majority of time and materials
necessary to cover this facility. Impact costs associated with this project are
projected using County impact model standards.
XI. Environmental Impacts
There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity
including run off sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be
minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental
protection. A minor increase in run off quantity and a decrease in quality is
probable from this development. The effects on the down -stream impoundment
and stream are minimal and in accordance with local and state regulations.
There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project.
There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be
effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected.
IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
XII. Fiscal Impacts
Fiscal impacts for the property are determined based upon the fiscal impact
model prepared by the Frederick County Department of Planning and
Development staff. For the sake of projection a 30 home build out will be used.
As stated earlier the property will support between 35-45 single family homes
although at this date only 21 homes are planned.
XIII. Other
This planned zoning change would create a nonimal impact as compared to the
existing zoning of RA. There are no known other impacts.
10
APPENDIX
1. PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
2. SURVEY
3. PROFFER STATEMENT
IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT
REZONING APPROVAL REQUEST
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
NOVEMBER 1994
11
6, NEW ei "I" MMM
650 r
r
Parcel 55-180
Wilkins Development___
COWrotion
Z6ri6q: RP
0
.Use: %cont - --- ----- o
(43
Porcel,55=103
i Blue Ridge M.H.P.
r.
j Zofled:MH-T -✓
1 `Use: i Res.
Parcel 650 ;r
55-179
William Schuller
Zoned: RA Ex. 8' Son Se �
Use: Vacant
Sewer
`\ 7l-Race Dr.
^ -x g M _
I —
f'
76
Es
{• _� /
Miil Race
(� 1.$5 ACRE 15.91 A Estates-
Zoned. "RP
states'Zoned.RP
t1 RE4AIW RA- . m- % i =' Use: Residential
U � Ii
\ x,\6_
m Ex.' 8" Son. Sewer i
Ex, Jule Sheet
Parcel " 1 ( o c�wZ)..
55-178 Ex_ 8* W M --- -
Minnie Schuller
Zoned: RA i
-` --Use: Res, i• - Total .1 AIG �
ti -_RA' t P�
Pwcel55-175/
=` a r r \ tlarnes `dc Mary Kiltougtr
Zoned: RA
Use: Res.
o,_c
Parc
-55-175A
` , Mark _
` '(Ritchie P.c155-175D
Developer: Parcel _ Zoned: RA j>W las K_
Cameron Group 55-181 `�Ise.�Res. Williams
Eastern Frederick - _ zoned: RA
clo Mr_ Richie Pifer , .. OeveJopment Corporation __. ,ux_Res.
81 S. Braddock Street 'S Zoned. RI� _ -
` r 1-1y^con t
Winchester, Virginia 22601Eic 550
Parcel _
` -55-175E-
Mill
55-175E Mill Race
Scale: 1'=300' Rev 1.2. 10 Nov. 1994 _ -=` - = Home Association
Contour Interval=10' June, 1994
gilbert w. crrrard & associates, inc VALLEY MILL ESTATES—REZONING sheet
ENGINEERS -- LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS I
150-c ade Greenwich Drive 200 North Cc,,, Street Generalized Development Plan of
Fredericksburg, virginio 22401 Wnchester, V19inio 22601
(703) 898-2115
Virginia fl
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER (Revised)
Weirman/Racey Properties
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
THE CAMERON GROUP
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 et. sea.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 approximately 19 acres from
RA Zoning District to the RP Zoning 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 be approved by the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such
rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever.
These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors or assigns.
General D e1 mnPln
The development of the subject property and the submission of any Master Development Plan
will provide for a street layout connecting with the Mill Race Estates Subdivision via Mill Race Drive,
and as shown on the attached Addendum "A" -Generalized Development Plan - Valley Mill Estates.
There will be no street connection directly to Valley Mill Road.
The rezoned property shall not be subdivided into more than thirty-two (32) lots and there
shall not be constructed thereon more than thirty-two (32) single family detached houses and no
apartments, duplexes or other multi -family buildings shall be constructed on the property.
Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development
The undersigned, who holds a contract to purchase the above described property from Gerald L.
and Frances F. Racey and the Georgia Weirman Estate hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of
Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 19 acre tract, more or
less lying on the north side of Valley Mill Road just East of the intersection of Mill Race Drive in the
Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay
to Frederick County, at the time a building permit is issued for each lot, the sum of Three Thousand One
Hundred Forty-two Dollars ($3,142.00) (for Parks and Recreation Department, Schools, Fire and Rescue
Department and as otherwise directed by the County). In essence, the sum of Three Thousand One
Hundred Forty-two Dollars ($3,142.00) will be paid at the time a building permit is issued for each lot.
See addendum 'B" showning breakdown of impacts by category.
Mone,LM Contribution to OffsetImpagt of Fire and Rescue
The undersigned, who holds a contract to purchase the above described property from Gerald L.
and Frances F. Racey and the Georgia Weirman Estate hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of
Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 19 acre tract, more or
less lying on the north side of Valley Mill Road just East of the intersection of Mill Race Drive in the
Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay
PAGE 2
PROFFER STATEMENT (Revised)
Weirman/Racey Properties
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
THE CAMERON GROUP
to the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company, Twenty-eight Dollars ($28.00) for each lot
approved for development on the Final Subdivision Plat. In, essence, the sum of Twenty-eight Dollars
($28.00)in payment will be made directly to the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company at the
time lots are approved for subdivision by the County.
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and
successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to
the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
Respectfully submitted,
CAMERON GROUP
Richard W. Pifer
Representative: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
M.
Stephen M. Gyurisin
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
November, 1994, by Stephen M. Gyurisin of Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc.
Representative for the Applicants.
viy Commission expires
Notary Public
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER (Revised)
Weirman/Racey Properties
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
THE CAMERON GROUP
ADDENDUM "A"
GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
6so
Parcel 55-180 - -------- ---
Wilkins Development_-
COWrotion ---- ---------
.76nN: RP
Use: %cant
w
Parcel 55' 103
.8lu'C Ridge M.H.P. r
Zohed: MH -_T
k0se: S.
1k I iRe
Parcel
OSO
55-179
w1illiam Schull k
RA
Zoned. Ex 8 -Son. Sewer
Use: Vacant
-Race Dr.
W_
WIM
76
Es
Q�
U
U t
Mill Race
15-bi A Estates"
1.85 ACRE IRP
RNAIW Zoned.
U��e Residential
x_\6 k.
x .� E 8' son. Sewer
Ex,; Jule s4eet
Parcel
'Ex. 8" W M
55 1, 8
Minnie Schuller kst--
Zoned: RA
---Use: Re:�____ Tow i. I Ac-,,
RA' A
Aurcel 55-175/
N)wnes%& Mary Kill'ough-
RA
Zoned.
0
% Res
0 Use�
6
Parc
% 55-175A
Mark
% 491tchle
Developer. Par -cel PcI 55- 1 75D
55-181 Zoned: RA DWg-las K.
Comeron Group watioms
Eastem Frederick Zorted: RA
C/o Ur Richie Pifer Oevelopment Co-_ ation j_,Usc_- Res
'Zo
81 S_ Braddock Street Zoned:
to 22601 _YPcont 550
Winchester, Virqin
Parcel
55-175E-
- ------ - Mill Race
Scale: 1'=,300, Rev 1-,, 10 Nov, 99 Horne Association
Contour Intervol=10' June, 1394
gilbert w. clifford & cissociotes, inc. VALLEY MILL ESTATES—R NING
ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS
150-C 01de Greenwich Drwe 200 North Comaron Str Generalized Development
Frl'der"sburg, Vw<)inio 22401 ( Plan
(7011 POP—— W-cheste(. V-rginio 22601
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER (Revised)
Weirman/Racey Properties
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
THE CAMERON GROUP
ADDENDUM "B"
GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
MONETARY IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT
BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS BY CATEGORY
SCHOOLS $ 2,600.00 PER UNIT
PARKS $ 541.00 PER UNIT
FIRE & RESCUE $ 28.00 PER UNIT
gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.
Engineers • Land Planners • Surveyors
Incorporated 1972
The Winchester Towers - Forth Floor
200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601
703-667-2139 • Fax: 703-665-0493
150C Olde Greenwich Drive. • Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
-70 3-898-2115
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDV
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Recommended Update of Comprehensive Policy Plan
DATE: November 28, 1994
Attached are the chapters from the Comprehensive Policy Plan which have been updated. As
always, items such as housing, school enrollment, and employment figures have been updated
to reflect the most recent information. This year, in addition to the these annual statistical
updates, minor editorial changes and other small changes have been made and we have included
a significant amount of information from the recently completed corridor report. This
information is included within the Land Use chapter.
A couple items have not yet been completed. One is the update of the Eastern Road Plan. This
will be discussed in detail at our meeting. Basically, the update consists of deleting or moving
certain road segments that for various reasons cannot be constructed as shown in the Plan. The
other is the proposed expansion of the sewer and water service area west to the railroad tracks
in the area of Route 11, just north of Stephens City. This item came up in discussion at the
retreat on Saturday, the 19. I discussed the possibilities for providing sewer and water service
to this area with Wendy Jones. Wendy said that water is not a problem, however, the nearest
sewer is behind the Battlefield Industrial Park on the east side of Route 11. There is an
agreement, that is valid for two more years, which would require the approval of the owners of
the park to extend this line outside of their property. Wendy stated that he felt an expansion of
the Sewer and Water Service Area at this time may be premature.
With the exception of these two items, the recommended Plan update is complete as presented.
Text that is proposed for deletion has been stFieken--otA, and text that is recommended for
addition is shaded.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
Page 2
Frederick County Planning Commission
RE: Comprehensive Policy Plan Update
November 28, 1994
We would like the Commission to consider scheduling a public hearing for your first meeting
in January. The Commission will need to decide whether issues surrounding the proposed
expansion of the sewer and water service area along Route 11 can be addressed in time to make
the adjustment as part of this year's Plan update
Please let me know if you have any questions on the proposed update.
KCT/rsa
Attachment
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Informal Discussion with Linden Unger Regarding a Possible Rezoning
DATE: November 28, 1994
Attached is a letter from Mr. Unger requesting time on the Commission's agenda to discuss the
possibility of rezoning a small parcel of land (roughly one and a third acres) located on the south
side of Route 522 North from B-2 (Business General) to RP (Residential Performance).
The property is located along the 522 North corridor in an area that is currently a mixture of
business and residential uses. The general area would be expected to gradually transition to a
predominantly business corridor. The parcel itself is low and during periods of heavy rain, is
at least partially under standing water.
A vicinity map is attached.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
KCT/rsa
Attachment
9 North Loudoun Stt-ect P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 2260
i, "f I J l`
,6,se� 41 If i,,�z
i
n
S
�te
i, "f I J l`
,6,se� 41 If i,,�z
PROPOSED REZONING FOR LINDEN UNGER
C7