PC 10-06-04 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
October 6, 2004
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) August 18, 2004 Minutes and September 1, 2004 Minutes.............................................(A)
2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Conditional Use Permit #19-04 of Rocky Keplinger, for a Public Garage with Body Repair.
The property is located at 161 Woodchuck Lane (Route 654), and is identified with Property
Identification Number 52 -A -262-B in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Mr.Beniamino................................................................................................................. (B)
5) Conditional Use Permit #22-04 of Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, submitted by
Lawton Saunders, for an Addition to the Existing Licensed Home for Adults and Adult Care
Facility. The property is located at 549 Valley Mill Road (Route 659), and is identified with
Property Identification Number 55-A-56 in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Mr. Beniamino................................................................................................................. (C)
6) Rezoning #12-04 of the Butcher Property (Briarwood LC), submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford
& Associates, to rezone 29.9891 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential
Performance) District. This property is located east of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and
adjacent to the Briarwood Subdivision, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by
Property Identification Number (PIN) 55-A-200.
Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (D)
7) Ordinance Amendment — Section 165-48 of the Frederick County Ordinance regarding
hours of operation for car washes in the B2 (General Business) Zoning District
Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (E)
8) Ordinance Amendment - Adding the MS (Medical Support) District to Sections 165-47
C (1) and 165-133 and 165-134 of the Frederick County Ordinance
Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (F)
DISCUSSION
9) Request for Extension of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to include
approximately 3 5 acres, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust and Associates. The properties are
currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are located on the west side of Front Royal Pike
(Route 522), east of the Eastgate Commerce Center. The subject properties are identified by
Property Identification Numbers 87-A-31, 87-A-34, 87 -A -34A, 87 -A -34B, 87-A-35 in the
Shawnee Magisterial District.
Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (G)
10) Discussion of Section 165-50 to include local government services office use in the RA
(Rural Areas) Zoning District.
Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (H)
11) Discussion of Section 165-63C
(Residential Performance) Districl
Mr. Cheran.......................................
12) Other
regarding open space requirements in the RP
............................................................................ (I)
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on August 18, 2004.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District, Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub,
Red Bud District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C.
Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Gene E. Fisher,
Citizen at Large; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors'
Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; and Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District
STAFF PRESENT: Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; Susan
Eddy, Senior Planner; Candice Mills, Planner I; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES - JULY 21, 2004
Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the
minutes of July 21, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 08/09/04 Mtg.
Cornmissioner Light reported that the CPPS Study Group presented the Rural Ax. -as Study
Concept for Development, which is anticipated to be revised in the future, to the CPPS. He said that the CPPS
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page(1361
-z -
gave their general consensus to send the Concept for Development to the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors.
Historic Resources Advisory Board - 08/17/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB met last night, but since there was not a
quorum, the business at hand had to be postponed until next month. She said that since the purpose of the
HRAB is to provide guidance to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on issues concerning
the County's historic resources, the members of the HRAB who were present discussed ways of encouraging
current HRAB members to become more active and involved.
Economic Development Commission - 08/13/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the EDC discussed next year's upcoming work plan. He
said they also discussed the branding exercise being undertaken to set up a recognizable marketing image for
Frederick County and the Winchester area.
Sanitation Authority - 08/17/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Fisher reported that the Sanitation Authority accepted a bid contract for the Rt.
50 West water and sewer project.
Winchester City Planning Commission - 08/17/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Ours reported that there has been considerable information in the news about
the development that will occur adjacent to the Sacred Heart Church on Amherst Street and Rt. 50 West.
Commissioner Ours said that the Winchester Planning Commission is beginning to consider that development
and one of the biggest problems they're encountering is the zoning of the retail/residential mix. He explained
that the zoning which allows the high-end retail also permits business uses that may be too evasive for that
area. In assessing how to best deal with that situation, the Commission is considering modifying the
Comprehensive Policy Plan or possibly, using conditional use permits. Commissioner Ours added that the
Planning Commission believes the area will be significantly affected by the development of the new Walmart
and the commercial areas approved by the County out on Rt. 50 West.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1362
-3 -
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Wayne Nicholson, a resident of 123 Princeton Drive in the Shawnee Magisterial District,
requested that the County notify all citizens who live within a 2/10 mile radius of properties being considered
for rezoning. He believed that citizens within that area could be impacted by a rezoning and should be notified
by letter.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning #05-04 of Burlington, LLC, submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. to rezone .78
acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District. This property is
located east of Winchester and north of Route 50, on the east side of Tulane Drive, and is identified with
P.I.N.s 64A-2-12 and 64A-2-13 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Denial
Planner Mark R. Cheran stated that the applicant is seeking the rezoning of this property with
the intent of developing a hotel on the parcel to the south and using the .78 -acre site for parking. Planner
Cheran said that during the Planning Commission's meeting of May 5, 2004, the applicant requested tabling
of his application to allow sufficient tune to address the concerns of the citizens and to rework their proffers.
Consequently, the applicant submitted a revised proffer statement, dated August 17, 2004, which has been
signed by the property owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. Planner Cheran
pointed out that the revised proffer statement has been provided to the Commission this evening. Planner
Cheran reviewed the revised proffers for the Commission, which he noted were prepared with input from the
staff to address concerns raised during the review of the application during the Commission's May 5, 2004
meeting. In conclusion, Planner Cheran stated that the proposed rezoning is in general conformance with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan as it relates to commercial use along Route 50.
Members ofthe Planning Commission expressed their objections to receiving revised proffers
at the public hearing, which did not allow time for Commissioners to review the proffers or compare them with
the proffers previously submitted.
Chairman DeHaven pointed out that the applicant has indicated that he is going to request a
tabling of this rezoning this evening. Chairman DeHaven said that in fairness to all of the citizens who were
present to respond to the application, the Commission would receive public comments this evening.
Mr. Ronald Mislowsky with G. W. Clifford & Associates came forward and requested that
action on this application be tabled for 30 days. Mr. Mislowsky said that they have possibly discovered a deed
restriction on this lot that would prevent its use for anything other than a single-family residence. He said that
the owner of the property has not yet had an opportunity to have his attorney examine the situation; he said that
if this is indeed the case, they would more than likely withdraw the rezoning application.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1363
.4 -
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Ms. Paula Bryant, a resident of 200 Yale Drive in the College Park subdivision, presented a
petition, dated August 12, 2004, with 92 signatures of residents in the College Park subdivision who were
opposed to the rezoning of this parcel for a hotel parking lot. Ms. Bryant read a prepared statement included
with the petition of opposition which raised issues concerning impacts to the quality of life for residents in the
existing neighborhood and the possibility of setting a precedent for additional commercial rezoning. Ms.
Bryant also had questions concerning the height, lighting, and sign restrictions in the B2 District and who
would have responsibility for the continuous maintenance of the landscaping.
Mr. Chris Miller, a resident at 106 Price Drive, cited numerous reasons why he was opposed
to the proposed rezoning. He said that the traffic and noise would affect the quality of life for the residents of
the neighborhood; he said the neighborhood is already experiencing increased traffic and other issues with
Shenandoah University. Mr. Miller anticipated decreased property values and a precedent -setting situation for
additional commercial rezoning in their neighborhood. He said that the height of the proposed six -story hotel
will dwarf the surrounding residential homes. In conclusion, Mr. Miller reported that the lot has become an
eyesore because it is being used to store pipe, building materials, tractor trailers, and logs.
Mr. Carl Tangeman, a resident on Yale Drive in College Park, was concerned about the
negative impact to property values and to the quality of life for the neighborhood residents. He said that this
area of the County was already saturated with hotels and motels.
Mr. William (Bill) Deck came forward to speak on behalf of his mother, Mrs. Gladys Deck,
a 37 -year resident of College Park. Mr. Deck said the adjacent restaurants have previously clogged the sewer
system that runs into College Park with grease which has caused backups into his mother's house. He believed
the City of Winchester owned the pipes, however, he requested that before the County added something of this
magnitude to the system, the County should consult with the City to determine the degree of impact to the sewer
system.
Mr. Lance Moss, a resident of College Park, preferred that the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the rezoning, rather than tabling it a second time.
Mr. Mike Kelley, a resident at 107 Purdue Drive in College Park, said that his home was
located on the corner of Purdue and Princeton, and he was on the opposite corner of the property under
consideration. Mr. Kelley was concerned about the possible domino affect this rezoning might have for
additional conunercial rezoning in this area which would isolate his family from the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Ronald Walker, a resident at 103 Harvard Drive, was concerned how far this application
had gone in the rezoning process before it was discovered the property had a deed restriction. Mr. Walker was
also concerned about the possible precedent -setting situation that would be created if this property was rezoned
to commercial.
Mr. Harley N. Oates, Sr., a resident at 104 Princeton Drive and adjacent property owner, said
that he was Mr. Fleet's neighbor, the previous owner of the property under consideration. Mr. Oates said that
neither he nor Mr. Fleet had any problems with the Hardees restaurant. In fact, Mr. Oates said that he would
rather see a nice restaurant on the property rather than a motel and parking lot . He stated the applicant's
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1364
-5 -
proposed six-foot fence would not provide him with adequate privacy from a six -story hotel. Mr. Oates was
opposed to the rezoning of this property.
Mr. Larry Cunningham, a resident at 105 Vassar Circle in College Park, agreed with all of
the comments made by the previous citizens who spoke. Mr. Cunningham asked all of the people in the
audience who opposed the rezoning to please stand. Approximately 20 people in the room stood.
Mr. Don Walker, a resident at 105 Harvard Drive, was opposed to a six -story hotel on the
property because it would be visually unappealing and he was concerned about the safety of neighborhood
children using the bus stop on the corner. Mr. Walker was also concerned about the increasing traffic in the
area and the impact to his quality of life, which he has already begun to experience with the expansion of
Shenandoah University.
Mr. Wayne Nicholson, a resident of 123 Princeton Drive of College Park, expressed his
concern that the deed restriction was not discovered until this point in the rezoning process. Mr. Nicholson was
opposed to the rezoning because it would negatively impact his quality of life. He did not want to see tractor
trailers being parked on the adjoining lot. Mr. Nicholson wanted to make sure the character of the College Park
subdivision was preserved; he believed it was unfair to subject the long-time residents of this neighborhood to
this situation.
Mr. Jim Dean, a long-time resident of College Park, was concerned that the deed restriction
was just discovered. Mr. Dean inquired if Shenandoah College had any involvement in this proposal. He also
had concerns regarding increased traffic congestion.
Mr. Denny Place, a resident at 111 Princeton Drive, had concerns that if the property was
rezoned and sold to someone else, any number of undesirable B2 uses could be established on the property.
Mr. Place also inquired how the "green area" across the street was tied into this property. He was also
concerned this rezoning would set a precedent for further rezoning requests in this area.
Mr. Jerry Shields did not want to see the Planning Commission table this rezoning again; he
asked that the Commission deny the rezoning at this evening's meeting.
Since everyone had been given an opportunity to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public
comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Mislowsky returned to the podium to address some of the concerns raised by the citizens
who spoke. He said that Tulane Drive will be the main access to Shenandoah University and when the
University's Events Center is developed, Tulane will become more of a commercial street than a residential
street. Mr. Mislowsky stated that Shenandoah University was not involved in the Burlington rezoning
application whatsoever. He explained that in order to mitigate the impact of the proposed parking lot on the
adjacent residences, he had proposed a six-foot block wall and the retention of the existing trees on the Fleet's
property line, as well as additional trees per the county's ordinance. Mr. Mislowsky commented that should
the Shenandoah University seek rezoning of their lots to HE 1, the University should extend the block wall and
landscaping feature along their property to create a physical barrier between the HE and commercial uses
along Tulane Drive, and the remainder of the residential uses. He said the continuous wall and landscaping
would provide some distinction between the uses and provide an entrance feature for the residential subdivision.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1365
Mr. Mislowsky continued, noting that maintenance of the landscaping would be ensured
through the proposed proffers and the structure height, the lighting, and the signs will be regulated by the
ordinance. Regarding comments about traffic and noise, he believed a high-quality hotel would generate less
of an impact than a convenience store or a fast-food restaurant. In conclusion, Mr. Mislowsky asked the
Commission to table their consideration of this rezoning until a determination could be made on the deed
restriction question.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., stated that in his firm's
capacity as consultants for Shenandoah University, G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has some understanding
of the ideas that have been put forth. Regarding the future use of Tulane Drive, Mr. Maddox said that
considerable sums of money have been spent fixing Tulane Drive along the University's frontage, redirecting
the roads inside the University, and creating connectivity. Mr. Maddox said that they are attempting to
coordinate the landscaping and buffering into a defendable space concept whereby the entrance features along
the residential area provide a feeling that you are leaving a commercial area and entering a residential area.
It was the opinion of some members of the Commission that rezoning of this particular
property to B2 would degrade the Urban Development Area (UDA) protection standard given to the residents
ofthe area; therefore, rezoning would be against the standards of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the UDA.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Rosenberry and seconded by Commissioner Light,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of
Rezoning Application #05-04 of Burlington, LLC, submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. to
rezone .78 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) by the following majority vote:
YES (TO DENY): Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Light, Fisher, Rosenberry
NO: Unger, Morris, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours
(Note: Commissioners Kriz and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
Rezoning #10-04 of A.P.R. Mini -Storage, LLC, submitted by Foltz Land Surveying, to rezone 2.5473
acres from RA (Rural Areas) to BI (Business Limited) District, and 10.1134 acres from RA (Rural
Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located on the north side of Route
776, about 500 feet east of the intersection with Route 522, and is identified with P.I.N. 64B -A-38 in the
Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Denial
Candice Mills, Planner I, stated that this rezoning would allow the 12.6607 -acre site to be
developed with a proposed mini -storage use on the B2 portion and a proposed office use on the B 1 portion of
the site. Planner Mills noted that while these uses are proposed, they have not been proffered by the applicant;
therefore, any uses allowed in the B 1 and B2 zoning districts could be constructed on the site. She also
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1366
-7 -
reported that the specified acreage is within an area of existing RA -residential uses and backs up to the
Winchester Regional Airport; the site is within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer
and Water Service Area); the site is within the study limits of the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan,
designating commercial land uses for this area; and the site is within the boundaries of the Airport Support
Area. Planner Mills added that the Airport Authority has initiated efforts to obtain the northern portion of the
site for fee simple acquisition.
Mr. Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, P.C., ofthe firm Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., was representing
the applicant in this rezoning. Mr. Lawson submitted a revised proffer statement which specified that a traffic
impact analysis (TIA) would be conducted, should the initial site provide for a land use with traffic generation
exceeding 600 vehicles per day (VPD) on Bufflick Road (Rt. 776). He said that if any second or subsequent
site plan is done for the property, the owner will conduct actual vehicle trip counts and in the event said counts
conclude there will be greater than 600 VPD, a TIA will be completed to identify necessary road improvements
to be made by the property owner. In addition, he said the proffer specifies that improvements must be made
within nine months. Mr. Lawson stated that a significant portion of this property will be acquired by the
Winchester Regional Airport and the applicant has been in continuous dialogue with the airport officials. He
further added that the traffic impact from mini -storage is minimal; he said the number of trips generated is far
less than the 600 trips being projected.
Some members of the Commission raised the issue of compatibility of a mini -storage use
within a residential neighborhood. Questions were raised concerning whether the narrow tar and chip road was
suitable for B 1 and B2 uses. Mr. Lawson responded that VDOT's comments had indicated their satisfaction
with the transportation proffers.
Another member of the Planning Commission reported receiving a number of e-mails and
phone calls from area residents and the prevailing issue was the additional traffic. In addition, the area
residents raised a concern about lights and sunshine reflecting off the rooftops of mini -storage units creating
an interference for arriving and departing airport traffic. Using the standard traffic impact generation models
for B2 property of this acreage, members of the Commission anticipated a significant increase in traffic flow.
They were concerned that although the applicant was specifically focusing on this one type of use, mini -storage
units, other uses had not been proffered out. Commission members asked the applicant what road system
improvements the County may expect, if the traffic exceeded 600 trips per day.
Mr. Lawson said that if light reflection is a concern of the airport, the applicant would have
no problem using flat, black roofs or some other material that does not reflect light. He stated that the site
lighting guidelines within the ordinance will be adhered to and extensive screening will also be used. Regarding
possible road system improvements, Mr. Lawson said that the report generated by the traffic study will
indicate where possible turn lanes need to be constructed, where a particular road needs to be widened or
resurfaced, or if traffic signals are needed.
Executive Director of the Winchester Regional Airport, Ms. Serena (Renny) Manuel, stated
that in approximately 1992-1993, the airport updated its 20 -Year Master Plan and as a part of the process, all
of the residents along Bufflick Road were invited to review the plan. She explained that this 20 -Year Master
Plan included land acquisition of properties towards the east, scheduled to begin after the completion of the
airport's major safety capital improvements. Ms. Manuel said that the capital improvements have been
completed and the airport's attention is now turning towards the land acquisition. She said that within this
year's budget, the airport has monies appropriated to start the acquisition of three parcels per year. She said
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1367
-8 -
that one of the three parcels the airport is acquiring this year is the A.P.R. mini -storage site; they are
anticipating the acquisition of 5.96 acres of the total parcel. Ms. Manuel added that the airport is designated
as one of the reviewing agencies when site plans are prepared for adjacent parcels. She said it is the airport's
responsibility to ensure that any concerns for shielded lighting are known to future developers. She further
added that once the Airport Authority acquires a parcel of land, all existing structures or improvements on that
property are removed.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak in opposition:
Ms. Sherry Jackson, a resident at 215 Bufflick Road, presented a map to the Commission
showing a number of residential properties on Bufflick Road that will remain after the airport's land acquisition
has been completed. Ms. Jackson was opposed to the rezoning request because she believed it was an attempt
to transition from a residential area to a commercial area. She believed the proposed location for this B2
Zoning did not conform with the definition or the intent of the B2 Zoning described in the County Zoning
Ordinance, specifically, that B2 Zoning should be located on arterial highways at major interchange areas. Ms.
Jackson pointed out that this was a secondary road with a 30 -foot right-of-way and it cannot accommodate
large vehicles or large numbers of vehicles without jeopardizing the safety of the residents. She said that if
future improvements are needed to Bufflick Road, it would necessitate taking out seven to eight feet of
everyone's front yards. In conclusion, she stated that the neighborhood has been in existence for a long time
and the residents would like to keep it residential.
Ms. Jean Lafollette, property owner at 235 and 236 Bufflick Road, commented that BufJlick
Road is tar and stone and she would like to see it remain that way. She did not want to see the road improved
and part of her front yard taken.
Mr. John Pearson, a resident at 192 Bufflick Road, commented on the narrowness of Bufflick
Road and he expressed concerns about a commercial access to the property under consideration. Mr. Pearson
described an existing problem in this area with speeding traffic; he believed a commercial use would only add
to the problem. Mr. Pearson was also concerned about water run-off and mentioned a couple of his neighbors
who have been experiencing flooding through their properties.
Mr. Patrick Eaves, adjoining property owner, expressed his concern that the proposed
commercial use was not compatible with an established residential neighborhood. Mr. Eaves believed the use
would affect his quality of life. He commented that any business located here would not be visible to the
traveling public because it's located down a country road.
Mr. Lawson returned to the podium to address some of the comments made by the citizens.
Mr. Lawson noted that the site is approximately 400 feet from the Route 522 intersection and, therefore, he
did not believe speeding vehicles would present an issue in that short of a distance. He stated that vehicle trip
counts for a mini -storage use are very low and this will not be a high -traffic use. Regarding the water run-off
issue, Mr. Lawson said that stoma water management issues will be addressed at the site plan stage. In
conclusion, he pointed out that the airport will be acquiring a large portion of this property, which will make
the useable portion of this parcel for commercial use much smaller.
Commissioner Gochenour reported receiving a phone call from a neighborhood property
owner, Ms. Katie Wisecarver, who could not be present. Commissioner Gochenour said the Wisecarvers were
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1368
concerned about traffic, an existing flooding problem, and an existing wetlands easement.
Since all the citizens who had wanted to speak had been given the opportunity to do so,
Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
During their discussion of this request, Planning Commissioners raised a number of issues of
concern. They pointed out that no uses were specifically tied down, no uses were proffered out, no road
improvements were specifically promised, and no impacts to the neighbors have been mitigated even though
the site is surrounded by residential on three sides. Commission members considered the application
incomplete.
Commission members pointed out that although the applicant presently intends to use the
property for a mini -storage use, that use could change in the future because it was not a part of a written
proffer statement. They believed, therefore, that the traffic impacts would continue to be a legitimate issue.
They were concerned about any number of possible B2 uses in the middle of a residential neighborhood. On
the contrary, other Commissioners did not believe this area would remain residential; they noted that when an
airport is established in an area, the area around the airport ceases to be residential and, consequently, that is
why the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates this area for commercial development. They predicted that
sometime in the future, possibly 10-15 years from now, this will be a commercial area supporting the airport.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Straub and seconded by Commissioner Rosenberry,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of
Rezoning # 10-04 of A.P.R. Mini -Storage, LL. C., submitted by Foltz Land Surveying, to rezone 2.5473 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) to B 1 (Business Limited), and 10.1134 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business
General) District, by the following majority vote:
YES (TO DENY): Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Unger, Light, Fisher, Rosenberry
NO: DeHaven, Thomas, Ours
(Note: Commissioners Triplett, Kriz, and Morris were absent.)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to make the additional materials received, specifically Mr. Lawson's
and Ms. Jackson's map, a part of the official record.
Rezoning #11-04 of Adams Development Group, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 59.708
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to 133 (Industrial Transition) District. This property is located
north of the City of Winchester, fronting the west side of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11), opposite the
intersection with Stephenson Road (Rt. 664), and is identified with P.I.N. 44-A-75 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1369
-10 -
Senior Planner Susan Eddy summarized by stating that the applicants have proffered a
generalized development plan (GDP) showing one shared entrance and the layouts of the proposed proffered
uses; they have proffered that only offices, office/warehouses, self-service storage, and warehousing land uses
will be permitted on the subject property. Planner Eddy reported that the proffered transportation
improvements are acceptable to VDOT and there is a monetary contribution to Fire & Rescue. She said that
the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) designates this parcel for business land uses and the application is
generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Planner Eddy added that staff would encourage
further consideration of enhanced design features along Martinsburg Pike. Further, the staff is additionally
recommending text revisions to the impact statement to fully address the concerns of the Public Works
Department.
Commissioner Gochenour, a member of the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
stated that the HRAB expressed great concern over the type of uses being proposed so near to Kenilworth and
they believed these uses were inappropriate and would destroy the viewshed from Kenilworth and Martinsburg
Pike. Commissioner Gochenour reiterated comments by the HRAB, noting that the Kenilworth structure is
identified as a potentially significant historical structure and is potentially eligible for the state and national
register of historic places. She added that a portion of the property is also located within the core area of the
Second Winchester Civil War Battlefield, according to the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley
of Virginia by the U.S. Department of the Interior. She further added that this area is identified as having
retained its historical integrity.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the design consultants firm, was present to
represent Mr. Robert Adams, the property owner. Mr. Wyatt stated that over the past eight years, this parcel
has been designated for commercial development as shown first in the County's Route 11 Corridor Land Use
Plan and then, the Northeast Land Use Plan. Regarding the traffic proffers, Mr. Wyatt said that they have over
700 feet of frontage on Route 11, which could allow three commercial entrances. He said that they have
proffered to eliminate the potential of three entrances in lieu of one commercial entrance which will align with
the entrance to APAC, across Route 11. Secondly, the have designated a 20 -foot strip of land to be dedicated
to VDOT, in the event an additional travel lane may be desired on the east side. Third, they have proffered a
turn lane into their entrance, allowing southbound Route 11 traffic to flow unimpeded into the site.
Mr. Wyatt said that a meeting with VDOT generated discussion on regional transportation
improvements. He said that per VDOT's request, a traffic evaluation of the area was prepared to determine
if any improvements or signalization were needed, particularly at Exit 321. Mr. Wyatt said that a proffer for
an off-site improvement for a signalization agreement was prepared as a result of that study. Referring to the
HRAB comments, Mr. Wyatt said that they have attempted to mitigate impacts to the viewshed by using 100
feet of distance and a six-foot high earthen berm with a minimum of four -foot tall trees.
Mr. Wyatt next spoke of the applicant's commitment to add two additional items to their
proffer statement and, pending acceptance of those additions by the Planning Commission, they would modify
the proffer statement before the Board of Supervisors' consideration of the pending rezoning. The first item
involved the inclusion of a stipulation that all commercial site plans be required to use best management
practices for storm water management quality; this narrative will be placed on the commercial site plans and
will specify the party responsible for maintenance of those facilities. The second item was the inclusion of
enhanced design features along Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11); specifically, designation of an additional 20 -foot
green strip on the other side of the 20 -foot dedicated right-of-way strip, with installation of a two -foot -high
earthen berm, low-level landscaping on the berm, and deciduous flowering trees spaced on 30 -foot centers.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1370
-11 -
Mr. Wyatt also stated their intentions to use an area along the railroad tracks for outdoor storage; a request
was made to allow the use of an existing 50 -foot woodlands strip as the ordinance -required buffer for the
outdoor storage area. Mr. Wyatt concluded by indicating how they planned to address the wetlands issues
during the master development plan and site plan stages.
Members of the Commission were concerned about the increased traffic impacts to
Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11), especially considering the cumulative effect on Route 11 from the West Virginia
line to Stephenson, due to the large residential subdivisions that were taking place in Berkeley County, West
Virginia. They inquired if trip generation requirements were considered for the site plan stage of development.
Mr. Wyatt responded that worst-case scenario trip generation figures, using maximum square footage, were
used for the traffic study and it was their opinion that actual counts would be less than what was projected.
Mr. Wyatt added that they anticipated VDOT's widening of Martinsburg Pike, which is why they included the
dedicated right-of-way, the access management control, and their participation in acquisition of a traffic signal.
Chairman Deflaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to
speak:
Mr. Elwood White, an adjoining property owner at the southeast corner of the Adams'
property, was seeking clarification on what the applicant would be installing next to his property with regards
to any berms, fencing, or landscaping. He was concerned that any redirection of water run-off may impact his
property.
Members of the Commission believed that areas of B3 Zoning were needed in Frederick
County, although concerns about the traffic impacts to Martinsburg Pike remained an issue. Upon motion
made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Morris,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Rezoning # 11-04 of Adams Development Group, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone
59.708 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition) with the two additional proffered items:
First, the inclusion of a stipulation that all commercial site plans be required to use best management practices
for storm water management quality; this narrative will be placed on the commercial site plans and will specify
the party responsible for maintenance of those facilities. Second, the inclusion of enhanced design features
along Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11); specifically, designation of an additional 20 -foot green strip on the other side
of the 20 -foot dedicated right-of-way strip, with installation of a two -foot -high earthen berm, low-level
landscaping on the berm, and deciduous flowering trees spaced on 30 -foot centers. Additionally, the request
to allow the use of an existing 50 -foot woodlands strip as the ordinance -required buffer for the outdoor storage
area along the railroad tracks was recommended for approval.
(Note: Commissioners Triplett and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1371
-12 -
PUBLIC MEETING
Subdivision Waiver Request of Centex Homes (Wakeland Manor) for an exception to the Frederick
County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-24C(2)b, which requires that no individual lots be more than
500 feet from a state -maintained road. The property is identified with P.I.N.s 75-A-100 and 75-A-101
in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Approved
Planner Candice E. Mills presented a request by Centex Homes to allow the extension of a
private road network through their townhouse development in Wakeland Manor, a mixed development with 397
single-family dwellings and 214 townhouses. Planner Mills said the request is to allow 17 townhouse units in
Phases 5 and 9 to be located more than 500 feet from a state -maintained road. She said the townhouse
development in Wakeland Manor is situated on the eastern side of the future Warrior Drive extension in
Stephens City that is being built with the Wakeland Manor Subdivision. She added that Frederick County Fire
and Rescue had no comments on the waiver.
Mr. Peter Ryneck of B -C Consultants, representing Centex Homes, stated that they were in
the process of engineering Section 5 when it was brought to their attention that a waiver would be required to
extend the distance between a public road and the units from 500 to 800 feet. Mr. Ryneck said that VDOT
has accepted the road that goes around the center circle as a public road; however, all other roads are private.
He added that this is an extremely steep sight and they are attempting to save all of the intermittent streams,
as well as the trees.
replied no.
A member of the Commission inquired if the density would be increased and Mr. Ryneck
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
The Planning Commission had no outstanding issues of concern with this waiver request.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Fisher,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve of
the Subdivision Waiver Request of Centex Homes (Wakeland Manor) for an exception to the Frederick County
Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-24C(2)b, which requires that no individual lots will be more than 500 feet
from a state -maintained road. (No action was needed by the Board of Supervisors.)
(Commissioners Kriz, Triplett, and Light were not present for this vote.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004 Page 1372
-13 -
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a
unanimous vote at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of August 18, 2004
Page 1373
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on September 1, 2004.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red
Bud District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours,
Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back
Creek District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten,
Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; David
Beniamino, Planner; Candice Mills, Planner; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES — AUGUST 4, 2004
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the minutes of
August 4, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 08/26/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed the Flex Tech section of the zoning
ordinance and ways it might be improved. Commissioner Thomas said that the DRRS is trying to determine why
the Flex Tech District is not getting much use lately. He added that the DRRS is also taking a look at improving
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1374
Draft Minutes of September 1, 2004
-2-
the
2-
the open space section of the RP (Residential Performance) ordinance.
Comprehensive Plans & Prolzrams Subcommittee (CPPS) - 08/31/04 Mtg.
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS met with the Board of Supervisors to present ideas
on the Rural Areas Study program. He said the CPPS received new direction from the Board and was given
another 30 days to work out some issues.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. John Goode, Stonewall District, came forward to talk with the Planning Commission about
the Rural Areas Study that is currently being undertaken by the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee
(CPPS). Mr. Goode was speaking on behalf of his parents who have been farming on Apple Pie Ridge since
1952. He said that over the years, his parents have accumulated 750 acres and have relied on their investment in
this real estate to be their retirement plan and their security for future health care. Mr. Goode said that the recent
proposals from the CPPS have caused them to be concerned that their property values could be destroyed, along
with their security. He urged the Commission to look at the possibility of an incentives approach, instead of
creating the fear that if the lots are not plotted immediately, value will be lost.
Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, Stonewall District, also came forward to express his views about the
Rural Areas Development changes. Mr. Stiles said that he and his brothers have been farming in Frederick
County for 37 years and he believed the proposed rural areas development changes would penalize farmers and
landowners, like himself, who have remained in farming over many years. He believed the proposed changes
would drive people to subdivide their land before the ordinance went into effect, in order to protect their interests.
Mr. Stiles predicted that housing costs under this approach would skyrocket and it would be impossible to build a
home in the rural areas for less than $500,000. He believed the new policies would play into the hands of the
large national developers that have come into Frederick County. Mr. Stiles was also not in favor of allowing
private septic systems; he believed the only way the County should consider any package treatment plant is ifthe
plant is dedicated to the Sanitation Authority to operate. Furthermore, he was not in favor of requiring a rezoning
application for the rural areas and contended that it was only a way to extract proffers on houses. Mr. Stiles
suggested an alternative approach to the Commission. He said that if the intent is to protect open space, a
requirement could be established whereby any parcel over 75-100 acres could be developed at the density of one
lot per five acres, but 50% of the land must be set aside. This would ensure that 50% of large tracts of land
remain undeveloped in rural Frederick County and yet, the value of the landowners' investment and their property
value is not destroyed.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1375
Draft Minutes of September 1, 2004
-3-
PUBLIC
3-
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit 417-04 of Edwin and Zuccly Elvira, submitted by Artz & Associates, for a
landscaping business. The property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is located at 225 Caldwell Lane (Rt. 717),
directly behind the AC Self Storage facility, south of Papermill Road (Rt. 644). This property is identified
with P.I.N. 63-44C in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Chairman DeHaven said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item due to
a possible conflict of interest and he turned the chair over to Vice Chairman Thomas.
Planner David Beniamino reported that the proposed conditional use permit (CUP) is for a
landscape contracting business on a five -acre parcel. He stated that there are no structures on site and no new
structures will be constructed as part of the CUP. Planner Beniamino stated that the staff is recommending that a
six-foot opaque fence be erected to screen the eastern edge of the property from residential uses. Furthermore, the
proposed use shall employ no more than ten employees at any one time and the site will not contain more than
nine vehicles stored on the premises; no sales of nursery stock will take place on site. Planner Beniamino read a
list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Mr. Michael M. Artz with Artz & Associates, Inc., PLC and Mr. Edwin R. Elvira, the property
owner, were present to answer questions from the Commission. The applicant's stated use of the property was to
store nursery stock and to park business vehicles on the site; the business vehicles included delivery trucks and a
vehicle used to transport a bobcat or other similar equipment. No structures were planned, due to the fact that no
drain field sites were available on the property.
Mr. Artz reported existing water runoff problems stemming from drainage issues on the
adjoining AC Self -Storage site; this runoff was impacting an adjoining property to the southeast (Mrs. Marie
Evans at 170 Harrison Lane). Mr. Artz stated that the Mr. Elvira has agreed to help mitigate the nmoffproblems,
even though his property is not a contributing factor. He explained that recent discussions between the County's
engineers, the excavator for the AC Self -Storage site, and the applicant have resulted in the development of a
future, mutually -beneficial agreement whereby the applicant will provide a drainage easement on his propertyin
exchange for an access easement through the AC Self -Storage facility's commercial entrance.
A member of the Commission pointed out the unsightly appearance of the property because it
contained junk and equipment. Mr. Elvira stated his intentions to clean up and organize the site with the approval
of the CUP.
Vice Chairman Thomas called for public comments and the following person came forward to
speak:
Mrs. Marie Evans, adjoining property owner at 170 Harrison Lane, stated that she was property
owner referred to by Mr. Artz, who was experiencing the water runoff problems. Mrs. Evans described to the
Commission the severe water runoff problems she has been experiencing since construction began at the AC Self -
Storage facility site, approximately one year ago. She said that the runoff has saturated her property and her
family's horses get stuck in the mud.
No other citizen was present to speak and Vice Chairman Thomas closed the public comment
Fredrick County Manning Commission Page 1376
Draft Minutes of September 1, 2004
M
portion of the meeting.
In order to ensure that storm water management issues and access right-of-ways were properly
resolved, the Planning Commission recommended an additional condition requiring the approval of a minor site
plan. They also recommended a condition to address the unsightly appearance of the property.
Upon motion made by Conunissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Rosenberry,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 417-04 of Edwin and Zucely Elvira, submitted by Artz & Associates, for a
landscaping business at 225 Caldwell Lane (Rt. 717) with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
No more than ten employees and nine business vehicles/ equipment shall be allowed on site as a part of this
conditional use permit.
3. No sale of nursery stock will be allowed on site.
4. A six foot opaque fence shall be constructed to screen this use from residential uses to the east.
5. Any expansion or modification of facilities will require a new conditional use permit.
6. A minor site plan addressing the access right-of-ways and storm water management issues must be approved
prior to operation of the business.
7. Any existing zoning violations must be removed prior to the operation of the business.
(Please note: Chainnan DeHaven abstained; Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.)
Chairman D Ha llm d the chair at this point in the meeting.
e 1 Yen leJu111e Li
Conditional Use Permit #08-04 of Walter and Taeko Floyd for an addition to an existing Bed and
Breakfast. The property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is located at 6238 Wardensville Grade (Rt. 608) and
identified with P.I.N. 69 -A -44A in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner Mark R. Cheran reported that this application will expand Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) # 11-01, an existing bed and breakfast use approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 11, 2001.
Planner Cheran stated that the applicant is requesting to add two more guest rooms and a meeting room to the
existing bed and breakfast use; the total number of guests allowed will be no more than 14 at airy one tinne. in
addition, the meeting/ conference room will have no more than 25 people at any one time.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1377
Draft Minutes of September 1, 2004
-5-
Planner
5-
Planner Cheran continued, stating that the closest residential dwelling is 50 feet from the
proposed bed and breakfast. He next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use
to be appropriate.
Board Liaison, Ms. Barbara Van Osten, referred to a reference in the staff report that the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address a bed and breakfast operation. Ms. Osten
inquired why it was not addressed and if there was a need to specifically address the use in light of the ongoing
Rural Areas Study and the intent of Frederick County to encourage this type of business. Planner Cheran replied
that the use will more than likely be included in the code as part of the Rural Area Economy portion of the Rural
Areas Study.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Mr. and Mrs. Walter Floyd, the applicants, were present at the meeting.
Commissioner s commented that the property was a beautiful site and the use was an asset to
Frederick County.
Commissioner Kriz stated that he was pleased to see an expansion of bed and breakfasts in the
County; he was also pleased that there would be an alternative place for people to meet besides a motel
environment. In addition, Commissioner Kriz commented that during a workshop last September, it was reported
that 20% of the tourism dollars in the State of Virginia come from bed and breakfasts. He hoped this would
encourage others to start bed and breakfasts.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #08-04 of Walter and Taeko Floyd for an addition to an existing Bed and
Breakfast at 6238 Wardensville Grade (Rt. 608), with the following conditions:
1. All Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and
complied with at all times.
2. No more than 14 guests at any one time allowed.
3. No more than 25 people allowed for a meeting or conference.
4. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new conditional use permit with an approved site
plan.
PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan #08-04 of The Townes at Mosby Station, submitted by William H. Gordon
Associates, Inc., for 17 townhouses. The property is located on the north side of Tasker Road (Rt. 642),
1,300 feet east of the intersection of Tasker Road and Aylor Road and is identified with P.I.N. 75M -2 -B -
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1378
Draft Minutes of September 1, 2004
M
8A in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Denial
Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, reported that this master development plan (MDP) was
presented to the Commission on July 7, 2004 and the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the
entrance waiver request and subsequently the MDP itself Director Lawrence said that since that time, the
applicant has relocated the entrance to align with Spanish Oaks Drive and will be addressing the Parks &
Recreation Department's request for a ten -foot bicycle path along Tasker Road. Director Lawrence added that the
proposed project does address the intent of the MDP process, the zoning ordinance, and other agency comments.
Commissioner Morris inquired if the Parks & Recreation Department's request for a ten -foot
bicycle path was in conflict with what is required in the Zoning Ordinance. Director Lawrence replied that the
Parks & Recreation Department is attempting to follow Federal guidelines for the width of bicycle paths;
however, it is not a zoning ordinance requirement at this time. Board Liaison, Barbara Van Osten, inquired if
there was an attempt being made by Frederick County to align the county standards with the Federal standards.
Director Lawrence said that the staffs of the Planning Department and the Parks & Recreation Department are
currently working on a county -wide bicycle plan for the Urban Development Area which will be incorporated
within the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Director Lawrence added that guidelines for pavement widths will be
included within the plan.
Mr. Claus Bader with William H. Gordon Associates, hic., the design company representing the
applicant, AMB Builders, LLC, came forward to introduce himself and one of the property owners, Mr. Brian
Martin. Mr. Bader also introduced Mr. Mike Vita and Mr. Ron Daniels from Globe, USA, the builders. In order
show the quality of the townhouses, Mr. Bader presented the Commission with a booklet of photographs of a
similar project. Mr. Bader explained that the three-level townhouses will consist of 2,100 square feet with 3 '/2
bathrooms and a garage on the first level.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak
in opposition to project:
Mr. Matt LeBlanc, adjoining property owner at 1232 Macedonia Church Road, did not believe
townhouses would be compatible with the existing single-family neighborhood; he believed the three-level
structures would tower over the existing single family homes, both with their height and appearance. Mr.
LeBlanc said these townhouses would be neither harnionious nor suitable.
Mr. Wesley Dobbs, adjoining property owner at 1226 Macedonia Church Road, also raised the
issue of incompatibility with his adjoining single-family neighborhood. He thought a more suitable location for
townhouses would be within a townhouse development, similar to those in other areas of Frederick County. Mr.
Dobbs expressed concern about how 2 '/z acres would accommodate three structures, paving, and a bike trail; he
was concerned about the affect on drainage and the possible future widening of Tasker Road.
Ms. Shannon Mantel, a resident on Lot 2, was concerned about the safety of children residing in
the proposed townhouses with Tasker Road being so close. As with the previous neighbors who spoke, Ms.
Mantel did not think townhouses would fit -in with the existing single-family neighborhood. She also believed the
property was too small an area to place all of the people who would reside in the townhouses.
Mr. Rodney Butler, adjoining property owner, was primarily concerned with the height of the
units. Mr. Butler did not believe the appearance of three-story structures would be harmonious or acceptable with
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1379
Draft Minutes of September 1, 2004
-7-
the
7-
the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Brad Frazier, adjoining property owner on Lot 3, expressed his concern about the lack of
sight distance for vehicles exiting the development onto Tasker Road. Mr. Frazier stated that he was a police
officer in the Northern Virginia area and worked traffic accidents daily. Considering the access was on a curved
section of Tasker Road, combined with the speed of oncoming vehicles, he predicted there would be numerous
traffic accidents. Mr. Frazier was also concerned that emergency vehicles would not be able to turn around once
inside the townhouse project.
Mrs. Brad Frazier, adjoining property owner on Lot 3, was concerned how the appearance of the
townhouses would affect her quality of life. Mrs. Frazier believed this was too high a density to place on a two -
and -one -half -acre lot. She also spoke about how congested Tasker Road was and the speed of vehicles traveling
on Tasker Road.
No other citizens wished to speak and Chairman DeHaven closed the public comments portion of
the meeting.
Mr. Bader returned to the podium to address some of the comments that were made. Mr. Bader
said that within approximately 1,500 feet of this project, within the Wakeland Manor subdivision, there will be
214 townhouses constructed. He said there will be a standard neighborhood mix of singles, duplexes, multiplex,
and townhouses. Mr. Bader added that erosion and sediment control and storm water management issues will
have to be addressed before the construction can begin. He further added that there is an existing 100-footbufler
along the rear of the property, between the townhouses and the adjoining single-family dwellings, which will have
a six-foot opaque fence and landscaping. In conclusion, he said that the fire marshal approved of their plan and
the entrance will meet all VDOT requirements.
Commission members asked for the distance between the existing single-family homes and the
proposed townhouses. Mr. Bader said that the adjoining single-family subdivision was platted with a 75 -foot
building restriction line and the subject parcel has a 25 -foot building restriction line.
There were members of the Commission who believed the proposed 2'/2 -acre property, developed
with three 35 -foot townhouse structures, would not be harmonious within hundreds of acres of single-family
homes. They recognized the importance of townhouses as a residential solution, but believed it needed to be done
in conformance with the surrounding area. Traffic concerns were also an issue. An opposing view was voiced by
other members of the Commission. They pointed out that the property was zoned RP (Residential Performance)
and townhouses were a permitted use within that zoning district. They also noted that the Commission had set
certain conditions before the applicant during the previous review of this master plan and the applicant has now
met those conditions.
Commissioner Fisher pointed out that there were some RP issues dealing with buffers and
setbacks in the zoning ordinance that the Planning Commission needed to address in the near future.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Master
Development Plan #08-04 of The Townes at Mosby Station, submitted by William H. Gordon Associates, Inc.,
for 17 townhouses on property located at the north side of Tasker Road (Rt. 642), based on the projects'
incompatibility with the character of the surrounding area.
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1380
Draft Minutes of September 1, 2004
The majority vote for denial was:
YES (TO DENY): Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Light, Thomas, Ours, Rosenberry
NO: Unger, Morris, DeHaven, Kriz, Fisher
(Please note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.)
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a
unanimous vote at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1381
Draft Minutes of September 1, 2004
CO�� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #19-04
Aw �
ROCKY KEPLINGER
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: September 20, 2004
z3a
Staff Contact: David M. Beniamino, Planner I
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information
to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a
decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning
matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 10/06/04 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 11/10/04 Pending
LOCATION: This subject property is located at 1.61 Woodchuck Lane, directly off of
Round Hill Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 52 -A -262B
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: (RA) Rural Area District
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: (RA) Rural Areas District
Land Use: Residential & Saw milling
PROPOSED USE: Public Garage: Emergency Service Vehicle Repair
CUP #19-04, Rocky Keplinger
September 20, 2004
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this
property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 654, the VDOT facility which would
provide access to the property. Prior to the operation of the business, a commercial entrance
must be constructed to our standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any
work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The
permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Fire Marshal: Access to within 100 feet of the structure must be maintained at all times.
Health Department: The Health Department has no objections to this conditional use pen -nit
for the proposed uses stated in the application.
Inspections Department: Buildings shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Building Code
and section 306, use group F (Factory & Industrial) for the machine shop and section 304,
use group B (Business) of the International Building Code/2000. Other code that applies is
CABO A117.1-98 accessible and usable buildings and facilities. Handicap parking and
access to the building shall be provided. A floor plan of areas to be utilized at the time of the
change of use application is to be submitted. The permit shall be obtained, inspections
approved and certificate of occupancy issued prior to operation.
Planning and Zoning: A public garage with auto body repair is an allowed use in the RA
(Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This proposed use
will be located at 161 Woodchuck Lane and conducted in a structure approximately 4,500
square feet in size, located in the southeastern corner of the property. The applicant plans to
repair and service a small number of emergency vehicles on site, as well as provide a limited
number of emergency vehicles for sale as an accessory use. The applicant stresses that this
facility would not be available to the general public, and all activity would be made on an
appointment only basis. It should be noted that the applicant states that 80% of his repair
work is done off-site.
The applicant maintains an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP #03-89) for the property
located at 218 Woodchuck Lane for the same type of use. The applicant desires to keep this
existing Conditional Use Permit in effect if this new Conditional Use Permit is granted.
Staff Conclusions for the 10-06-04 Planning Commission Meeting:
Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the
following conditions:
1. No more than five (5) vehicles for sale shall be located on site at any one time. All
vehicles for sale shall be associated with Emergency Services.
CUP #19-04, Rocky Keplinger
September 20, 2004
Page 3
2. No more than ten (10) vehicles awaiting repair shall be located on site at anyone time.
3. No more than fifteen (l 5) company-owned vehicles shall be located on site at any one
time.
4. A buffer amounting to either a six (6) foot opaque fence or a double row of evergreens
will be provided along the northern property line.
5. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and
will not exceed four (4) square feet in size.
6. A minor site plan will be required on if the cumulative square footage of the structure on
the site surpasses 20,000 square feet.
7. No more than twelve (12) employees will be associated with this Conditional Use Permit
Any expansion or modification of this use shall require approval of a new Conditional
Use Permit.
Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriatefor the Planning Commission to
offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors.
AWA (Business, Neighborhood District)
CUP#14-04 !;{62 (Business, General District)
uLakes/Ponds 63 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
/�/ Streams
OParcels / EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
rHE (Higher Educatwn Distract) KR4 (Residential Planned Community District)
City J Town BoundayE
E%jX ! M7 (Industrial, Light D strict) 'RS (Residential Recreational Community District)
M2 (industrial, General District) RA (Rural Areas District)
S''H(Mobile Home Community District) RP (Residential Performance District)
MS (Medical Support District)
Keplinger
0 82.5 165 330
�p
r} L�CUP#14.04
Apft
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
"ffdd++tE
ULakes/Ponds03
_ B2 (Business, General District)
(Business, Industrial Transition District)
Streams
REM
(Extractive Manufacturing District)
OParcels
Cl2. City / Town Bounday! HE (Higher Education District) few ,R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
i. gMi (Industrial, Light District) RS (Residential Recreational Community District)
St:-'(Medical
(Mobile Home Community District)
Support District)
ORA (Rural Areas District)
Keplinger
0 82.5 165 330
Parcels i
C.O. City / Town Boundayl HE (Higher Education Distrito ,�„�."R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
(Industrial, Light District) RS (Residentlal Recreational Community District)
M2 (Industrial, General District) F RA (Rural Areas District)
SMH7 (Mobile Home Community District) RP (Residential Performance Distnct)
S (Medical Support District)
Keplinger
0 82.5 165 330
tvla:p rearures
CUP#14-04
IBt (Business, Neighborhood District)
CLakes Ponds33
112 (Business, General District)
Streams
(Business, Industrial Transition District)
RJEM
(Exbactive Manufacturing District)
Parcels i
C.O. City / Town Boundayl HE (Higher Education Distrito ,�„�."R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
(Industrial, Light District) RS (Residentlal Recreational Community District)
M2 (Industrial, General District) F RA (Rural Areas District)
SMH7 (Mobile Home Community District) RP (Residential Performance Distnct)
S (Medical Support District)
Keplinger
0 82.5 165 330
sl
4`cx o� JUL 19, 2004 Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
a�
BOS Meeting
a€� T Q
APPLICAT T FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
.FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1• Anblicant (T//he applicant if the owner p`"� other)
NAME: 7,0 /�
F ice"
ADDRESS:
7
TELEPHONE a),nkc� rsfe
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
.2 % ' vc'= %4
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a
depth of ,)Q feet and consists of
- /.d acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by ► .- ( `�,alet/ �; jf �. as
evidenced by deed from rec rded
revious owner)
in deed book no. �_ on page�ras recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. Tax(Parcel)ldentificatio (I.D. No.
Magisterial District
Current Zoningc r2e�
i. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North �S;U ty/fz 9
East
South
West ,,�
a.
9.
The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
It is proposed thatt
constructed:--- 5:ih %C
c
.ng Zbildings will be
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
NAME A14—L,
/f ��' G G C� U DRESS ,5 F )i&yC /1/1 1,6J 1,1Q1 .z t4
PROPERTY ID# C3 - A - a/- � adlll()a
PROPERTY ID#
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
d01& -)JL
NAME �`2 �� ¢� L -
ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID# , , -- d
NAME '�} a i lti0.f},/c'C/i���
ADDRES S
PROPERTY
VAME � �2 .^�}�./�l1 !J'-��I%e
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
NAME � "� �� f�S AC
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
NAME �' ��-
ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
d01& -)JL
11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show
proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including
measurements to all property lines.
5"" i %
12. Additional
comments,
if any: )1
114e, Ae[°A)
//��
LdilJ{'OL1/_l?�i .in
r,I --)0 /-'/- . -,/
/
1J(jrs't
rL
B
av l e,4j ire
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
:First public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address
QIP
Owners' Telephone No. 12-C-)
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651
Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
(Name)//7 a '/V �1 s/�� �2/ ) % L)�C�
%)p✓C� (Phone
(Address)YTS//rJ A4.�e
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No. 6 l on Page ��_/ and is described as
Parcel: 57,;Z Lot: A- Block:, Section: _& Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) k1i" ec- / '/'�
(Phone) % -
(Address)! 4t,� A�°L�inrrie5/'�2 //'fi di;66
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including:
❑ Rezoning (Including proffers)
Conditional Use Permits
❑ Master Development Plan (Prellminary and Final)
❑ Subdivision
❑ Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to
Previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, I (we)/have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of
Signature(s)x~�7��'/✓.�
State of Virginia, City/ oun of a
U To --,;it:
I, i1Ci�i1� , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the persons)
who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me
and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdictionaforesaid this 'day of 1u/0E , 200.
a n
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public --��-
4�G� Cp
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 922-04
ROBERT E. ROSE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
w Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting
3a Prepared: September 20, 2004
Staff Contact: David M. Beniamino, Planner I
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on
this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 10/06/04 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 10/27/04 Pending
LOCATION: This subject property is located at 549 Valley Mill Road (Route 659).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Redbud
PROPERTY ID NUMBER s : 55-A-56
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District
Land Use: Residential
PROPOSED USE: Addition to the Existing Convalescent and Nursing Homes, Adult Care
Residences and Assisted Living Care Facilities.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this
property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 659, the VDOT facility which would
provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use
expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards.
CUP #22-04, Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation
September 20, 2004
Page 2
Frederick County Fire Marshall: Access to the addition must be made from the existing asphalt
and gravel drives on each end of the existing structure. Provisions for evacuation of all occupants
from the existing and proposed building shall be uninhibited to an all weather surface. Plan approval
recommended.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comment.
Frederick County Inspections: Building addition shall comply with The Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code and Sections 308, Use Group I (Institutional) of the International Building
Code/2000. Other Code that applies is CABO Al 17.1-98 Accessible and Usable Buildings and
Facilities. Please note section 3408.6 of IBC for the accessibility requirements for Additions and
Renovations (ADA 20% rule). Design Professional lic. In VA shall seal the structural plans
submitted for permit application and special inspection requirements of Chapter 17 of IBC shall
apply to this type of structure. (Soils, concrete, steel, etc.)
Planning and Zoning: This application is for a building expansion of a pre-existing Conditional
Use Permit (CUP #02-96) for an adult care facility. An adult care facility is an allowed use in the RP
(Residential Performance) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit.
The applicant plans to build a 5600 square foot addition, to be completed in three phases. This
addition will include a new physical therapy room and eight (8) additional resident rooms. The site
currently contains a 26 bed facility constructed in 1996, utilizing a Community Development Block
Grant. Since the site's construction, Valley Mill Road has been relocated as part of Greenwood Road
improvements. Relocation of this road will allow expansion to occur with minimal impact.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10-06-04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, staff would recommend the following
conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. A site plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.
3. Applicant must comply with all requirements of the state and county codes pertaining to adult care
facilities at all times.
4. Any expansion or modification of this use shall require approval of a new site plan and a
Conditional Use Permit.
Following the requisite Public Hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to
offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors.
55 A 55
KOON
55C 7 5 17
SMITH
G V
Pebble
ble k
OPEN SPACE
HILL VALLEY HILL VALLEY
HOA
HOA
55C 92 27A 55C 9 2 27A
QQ"
ROSE, ROBERT E
MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
55C 81 2A
HILL VALLEY 8
55 A 56 `�
HOA
55C 7 5 18
.CLEMENS
ROSE, ROBERT E
MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
55 A 56
55 A
FREDERICK
WINCHESTER
1p
_ 55C 31 1
55C 7 5 25 P�
METZ 55C 31 2
BULLARD
55C 7 5 26 55C 31 3
METZ 55C 31 4 REIEID
55C 31 5 TODD
LINK
CUP # 22 - 04 - Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation
(55-A-56)
0 50 too 200 yoo
Feet
CUP # 22 - 04 - Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation
tOD5M
(55 - A - 56)
0 50 100 100 700
19M
M
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
CONN%CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
hoogt'
1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner ✓ other)
NAME:
ADDRESS: �.O �J� �� CrJ 1 (,� IaJG-�Ca�� 2` CI&
TELEPHONE
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
SIAII \/:&j.i_ -(i r N t t -i t2c3 0 LA ti
�7 t:.4 -s --r . -r,3e-A-) ,rr\ Ii_t__. Psisc� 2'r to-S�j
`yo CASA22 � d -3 2t �- '�h'�C' ( P -- � G 7GCs � �C3,�-
4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a
depth of ?iepo feet and consists of acres.
(Please be exact) '�'���'��
5. The property is owned by aq,; � 9 . �� � rnewce,A-4,�-
evidenced by deed from ycr32��t recorded
previous owner)
in deed book no. 8�`Z. on page 1 D 0J , as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. Tax(Parcel) Identification (I.D.)No.►'� �� '�` ` ��'
Magisterial District
Current Zoning
7. Adjoining Adjoining Property:
USE
North 121�5
East
South
West
ZONING
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept,
before completing)Arp-o f=Ctc+� -fo 67
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: --VO 1 i4MC5 G* 12,11 G "�' `'�"'3 �
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
ADDRESS I US Vo. t..L��
NAME C. ; S,\- T,1.-�rc� M. -
PROPERTY ID# E�,5G -1,15- V1
NAME ADDRESS v
PROPERTY ID# ,=,=C_
NAME 7 L_ Gam„ ADDRESS
L1 -r- w;,r+4
PROPERTY ID#.SSG -I 'S Z.5
NAME MG ` ADDRESS 'PC) "E=,,
PROPERTY ID# S fir' ? Z_G
NAME 4-�n�IafpolL, FI; s lr.e;-�-� C-�, ADDRESS nos
PROPERTY ID# SSC 1 l
NAME ADDRESS pZ
yam. Z2_46oz
PROPERTY ID#SSC 1 Z_
NAME Jr -. ADDRESS 1�aJ.►5 'P��
PROPERTY ID# 55 G
NAME DDRESS N OC,
PROPERTY ID#
NAME "= n . -E `Ni -. ADDRESS
PROPERTY I D # 5 \ .S
NAME FY-���cr;c�L^ y-1;.,�c�,.c�4��r-- ADDRESS Uo,c %,jj,.��Vs4
22.Coo�}
PROPERTY IDI—=6 s4 1 tCZ G
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
NAME
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ID#
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
PROPERTY
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
ADDRESS
NAME
ID#
ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY
ID#
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY IDI
11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show
proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including
measurements to all property lines.
-SQSc A—n-r,s.G�l�'�
6
2
2A
CRE5
IRS
E
L
'Q4
f-sro
P aj
M
CA
VWL s
FKAME
GRAVEL WALL
4-2
<
35'
SL'PVEY(.)P,'c, CERTIFICATF- VALLLI-.y
RO-U659
;NFOkW
RiON SHOWN ON TE
'S BA3,r','j Uj4 AN ATUAL FiLD 'SURVEY NADE
07
IRS Ir or. POP, set
4.
Pipe Found
Utility Poie
O/Iq utrilty
Fence
F'7777
AsphoO Surfuce
Rest,"wficn Lii,o
2
2A
CRE5
IRS
E
L
'Q4
f-sro
P aj
M
CA
VWL s
FKAME
GRAVEL WALL
4-2
<
35'
SL'PVEY(.)P,'c, CERTIFICATF- VALLLI-.y
RO-U659
;NFOkW
RiON SHOWN ON TE
'S BA3,r','j Uj4 AN ATUAL FiLD 'SURVEY NADE
07
'X;O:.R MY `.:LPUVISICN ON SEP"EM&CR 3, 1198 ANID THA-" ; "rr F
7C'
7H 1, NO 'ITLE REPORT
E 3F",T 0�- My KNI-'W�TN'E Ai,40 BELlY THERE ARE
i.'Nl , 'T.C)All-t-,MENIS OR VISIBLE V-A'7-EKAEN:fS (,N,,.Ess 2. `ASEMEN-5 MA's '-Xl'". 7HAn
C 1V A =1 1p�/Tzv
ARZ N C i S H 2 yli N
4.
'X;O:.R MY `.:LPUVISICN ON SEP"EM&CR 3, 1198 ANID THA-" ; "rr F
7C'
7H 1, NO 'ITLE REPORT
E 3F",T 0�- My KNI-'W�TN'E Ai,40 BELlY THERE ARE
i.'Nl , 'T.C)All-t-,MENIS OR VISIBLE V-A'7-EKAEN:fS (,N,,.Ess 2. `ASEMEN-5 MA's '-Xl'". 7HAn
C 1V A =1 1p�/Tzv
ARZ N C i S H 2 yli N
)— s ul I j o It
(,,v -5}N`a'i
A--q is }
FxtSYa4 (3.4 c-
12. Additional comments, if any:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
V r.�
Cr"�,-
Owners' Mailing Address
Owners' Telephone No. S -U
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
Special Limited Power of Atto tivaW
C E WE
County of Frederick, Virgin'Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.fre $ 2004
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Vi ginia�lA NTNG FREDERICK
COUNTY
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
PM
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name)06ge2T E- eo�cg rne--caAAA- r,r,J, io-3e4Phone) Cv6'7- I r'1 i'I
(Address) `. L4q Y ,v,�� o i LJic ;a-igT , C -X .
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No.
Or7Z, on Page 16
Parcel: ,6S Lot: /6- Block: 1!5& Section:
do hereby snake, constitute and appoint:
(Name)
and is described as
Subdivision:
(Phone) 75,-L40 '6"--7- 13 6113
(Address) Py . G5 -f- CoS I C-1) I--k-s-1 ET Che , ch • Z-0-4-6 f
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including:
❑ Rezoning (including proffers)
W`�- Conditional Use Permits
❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
❑ Subdivision
Q;/'Site Plan
My attomey-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified.
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of, 200-,
X Signature(s) -1?, , itz, _ 1
CT
State of Virginia. Ci /Count of f'
g City/Count :J - �+L,.-� �2, , To wit:
i I , a NotaryPublic in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid,
certify that the erson(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has
acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this r day of ) (A ,u, 200 JJ.
My Commission Expires: 7 l 31 f uo
Notary Public 0
REZONING APPLICATION 912-04
®+ BUTCHER PROPERTY (BRIARWOOD LC)
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting
�"�'"• Prepared: September 18, 2004
t„a
Staff Contact: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
PIanning Commission: 10%06/04 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 10/27/04 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 29.9891 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential
Performance) District.
LOCATION: The property is located east of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the
Briarwood Subdivision.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud
PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 55-A-200
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District
PRESENT USE: Undeveloped
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance)
South: RA (Rural Areas)
East: RA (Rural Areas)
West: RP (Residential Performance)
PROPOSED USES: 69 single family detached dwellings
Use: Single Family (Briarwood)
Use: Undeveloped
Use: Undeveloped
Use:. Single Family (Briarwood)
Rezoning #12-04, Butcher Property (Briarwood LC)
September 18, 2004
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Via e-mail on September 20, 2004, VDOT advised that the
revised proffer statement has achieved VDOT approval. July 27, 2004 comment: The
documentation within the application to rezone this properly appears to have a measurable impact on
Farmington Boulevard and Greenwood Road. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been
considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is offering the following comments in
regards to the rezoning submittal:
• The Traffic Impact Analysis has been forwarded to our District Office for review. Comments
will be forthcoming.
• The layout for the proposed subdivision as shown on Figure 4, although very preliminary in
nature, will require some type of traffic calming measure on Farmington Boulevard. I am
providing this comment at this stage of the development approval since it could potentially have
an impact on the number of lots in the subdivision.
• Please use a growth rate of 5% for the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
• It appears you did not include any of the proposed traffic from the development formerly known
as Coventry Court Subdivision.
• Please include the intersection of Route 657 and 656 in your study area for the TIA.
• In your Table II, please label your "Other Developments" with the appropriate name so the
number of units can be verified.
• On your Figure 6, Trip Distribution Percentages, VDOT does not agree with your percentages
showing no traffic heading east on Valley Mill Road. We believe some motorists will in fact
utilize this road to access Route 7.
• There appears to be no transportation proffers in this rezoning submittal although your
development is in fact adding traffic to this area. Some suggested proffers could include a
contribution to the improvement of Valley Mill Road from the intersection with Greenwood out
to Route 7 East. In addition, a contribution could be applied to the reconstruction of the Route
656 South and Route 657 intersection to be aligned with Greenwood Road at the recently
reconstructed portion. Lastly, a suggested proffer could include a contribution to a future signal
at the intersection of Farinington Boulevard and Greenwood Road.
• A signalization agreement shall be required for the intersection of Farmington Boulevard and
Greenwood Road, Route 656.
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. Tri Generation Manual, Seventh
Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-
way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. 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.
Fire Marshal: Municipal water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick
County Code section 90-4. Fire hydrants shall be located within three feet of the curb and landscaping
Shall not interfere with its operation. Plan approval recommended.
Rezoning #12-04, Butcher Property (Briarwood LC)
September 18, 2004
Page 3
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments.
Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the proposed Butcher rezoning and
offer the following comments:
• The traffic impact analysis indicates that the proposed project will include 65 single family
dwellings. The remainder of the rezoning application including the impact model indicates 70
dwellings. This conflict needs to be corrected accordingly.
• The discussion of solid waste disposal facilities indicates that the residents will use Frederick
County dumpster sites for disposal of solid waste. In all probability, the residents will attempt
to use the Greenwood convenience site located adjacent to the proposed project behind the
Greenwood Fire Hall. However, the current site has exceeded capacity because of recent
development in the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road area. The proposed development on the
Butcher property will only serve to further exacerbate the problem. A curbside program
implemented by the homeowners' association would be a preferable approach to solid waste
disposal to avoid the long lines at the convenience site.
Sanitation Authority: No comment.
Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the
proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal
review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural
Winchester Regional Airport: The referenced proposal was reviewed. While the proposed
development lies within the airports Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan
will not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport.
Frederick County Department of Geographic Information Services (GIS): No comment at this
time. Please submit road names for review and approval when they have been determined.
Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation: The Butcher property rezoning application
appears to have addressed the open space requirements and offers a monetary proffer to help offset the
demand for leisure services which will be created by this development.
Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The health department has no objection as long as the
proposal does not impact any existing or proposed wells or septic systems.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the
proposed 70 single family homes will yield 12 high school students, 10 middle school students, and 28
elementary school students for a total of 50 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth
in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or
exceeding their practical capacity. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature,
coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the
Rezoning 412-04, Butcher Property (Briarwood LC)
September 18, 2004
Page 4
future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact
of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the
zoning of the subject parcel as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The County's agricultural
zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon
adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The
corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and
all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
Land Use
The Urban Development Area (UDA) is the principal land use tool of the Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The general purpose of the UDA is to define the areas in the
county where more intensive forms of residential development will occur. It does this by
dividing the County into rural and urban areas. The UDA was originally created with the intent
that it would be adequate enough to accommodate long term growth needs in areas of the
County where public services are most available. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-1, 6-2)
The subject property is located entirely within the UDA. There are no small area land use plans
found in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan for the site. In accordance with the
Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, "any new suburban residential development
served by sewer and water will have to be located within the UDA." As such, the subject
proposal is consistent with this general land use policy. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-5)
Transportation
The subject site is accessible via Farmington Boulevard, a road classified as a minor collector
road by the Eastem Road Plan, The Eastern Road Plan indicates that Farmington Boulevard
will traverse the subject site in a east -west manner, linking Greenwood Road and Channing
Drive. Farmington Boulevard will ultimately travel through various residential
Rezoning #12-04, Butcher Property (Briarwood LC)
September 18, 2004
Page 5
neighborhoods: the Briarwood, Lynnhaven, and Sovereign Village subdivision, and the Butcher
property. This application does accommodate Farmington Boulevard across the site.
Farmington Boulevard currently intersects with Greenwood Road at an unsignalized
intersection. This applicant has proffered to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT.
At the intersection of Farmington Boulevard and Channing Drive, east of the subject site, 25
acres of vacant B2 property currently exists. This commercially zoned land will provide
commerce opportunities for the future residents of the subject site. It is foreseeable that
Farmington Boulevard, as a minor collector road, could achieve daily traffic counts up to 3,000
trips per day. Accordingly, traffic calming measures have been proffered by the applicant to
lessen impacts on the residents along Farmington Boulevard.
3) Site Suitability/Environment
The subject 30 -acre parcel contains woodlands and limited areas of wetlands; wetlands of which
total less than 0.9 acres. A central intermittent stream channel bisects the site from south to
north draining through the Briarwood Estates subdivision. The ordinance required Riparian
Buffers will be provided on either side of the channel to maintain the stream's integrity.
The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils
comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association. These
types of soils are common on land located east of Interstate 81. They present some limitations
to site development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and slope. The
management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site engineering process
associated with subsequent development applications for the proposed project.
4) Proiect Scope
If the Butcher property is rezoned and later master planned, the property could realize a
maximum proffered density update to 2.3 residential units per acre, a density consistent with
adjacent developments
5) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
Using the standards found in the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, the proposed
rezoning would increase traffic by 690 vehicle trips per day. The applicant's Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) projects 69 single family detached residential lots being created from the 30 acre
site. The existing traffic on Farmington Boulevard is 880; the proposed rezoning could increase
the traffic on Farmington Boulevard by 78 percent. A majority of the residents will utilize
Greenwood Road, accessed via the Greenwood Road and Farmington Boulevard intersection.
B. Sewer and Water
An impact of 13,800 gpd is projected based on an average of 200 gpd per residential unit. The
Sanitation Authority and Service Authority have offered "no comment" for this rezoning.
Rezoning #12-04, Butcher Property (Briarwood LC)
September 18, 2004
Page 6
C. Capital Facilities Impact
The Capital Facilities Impact Model projects a total fiscal impact of $10,089 per dwelling unit
associated with this rezoning. This includes a projected increase in the public school student
population by 50 children.
6) Proffered Conditions
The following list is a summary of the proffered conditions associated with this rezoning
application:
• Assurance that the site will be developed to accommodate no more than 69 single family
detached dwelling units
• Contribution of $10,206 per lot to lessen the impacts on capital facilities. An escalator clause
has been proffered, which would go into affect for new construction set forth after 30 months.
• The applicant will enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for the intersection of
Farmington Boulevard and Greenwood Road.
• The applicant will implement traffic calming techniques along Farmington Boulevard.
(Staff Comment: The applicant has also proffered to: utilize the County's public water and sewer
system; create a Homeowner's association; practice stormwater management and BMP; and, adhere to
the RP Residential Performance regulations. These proffered items are restatements of ordinance
requirements.)
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/06/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This application is a request to rezone approximately 29.9891 acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas)
District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. The land requested for rezoning is within the
UDA (Urban Development Area) and is generally consistent with the land use policies found in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. Primary access to the site will occur via Farmington Boulevard, and its
intersection with Greenwood Road.
The proffer statement of this rezoning application attempts to mitigate the potential impacts associated
with this rezoning.
Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application to be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to
adequately address all concerns raised by the Commission and review agency staff.
Butcher Property
Subject: Butcher Property
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:24:07 -0400
From: "Lineberry, Ben, PE" <Ben.Lineberry@VDOT.Virginia.gov>
To: "'CMohn@phra.com"' <CMohn@phra.com>
CC: "Eric Lawrence (E-mail)" <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us>,
"Ingram, Lloyd" <Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.Virginia. gov>,
"Lineberry, Ben, PE" <Ben.Lineberry@VDOT.Virginia.gov>
The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable
impact on Route 656. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access
to the property referenced.
VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the September 7, 2004 rezoning
application addresses transportation concerns associated with this request except for Comment
12.2 where the applicant shall enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT to share their
prorated portion of the costs of the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Farmington Boulevard and Greenwood Road. All other issues are acceptable at this time.
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, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way
needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway
improvements and drainage. 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.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.
Ben H. Lineberry, Jr., P.E.
Assistant Resident Engineer
VDOT — Edinburg Residency
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
(540)984-5605
(540) 984-5607 (fax)
1 of 1 9/22/2004 3:17 PM
oosM Rezoning # 12 - 04 - Butcher Property
(55 - A - 200)
.aoo
� 0
250 SOU , 1,500
Feet
all,
.; g r �� . •f4y T �t ' i �► �' Vis,,;'^ f4 �� l � ^ � ^ :� ', r,�"r�I �� , ' � �r +v�
VA
"
`': l�, ,+ f i1 .' '",ti'• .t, l { x 'pJf� , 44 �L`p.
�,/¢j„1g}�G ,y ,+< � ! 7 _ .. { ! , •%• �, 'l r, „� 1. - !,, F ,
f r 6. .w• ••s„ e /Cs r � gip' a' ��_ 7� i .e:.. � ,5 - v' r.5, b�... ��,� ,,�,
=^s \ .,�AA �r.�.: � r,'r,”; `ti . ,�hC ,.:.rrl�,J,• `����e:' � �` '�a r� i, "rp. •=i�— rof,� ti. `�. '73..
4
W.o
IV,
ox
IN
r y
t fi r
�? tri -(. .,+{a r• � . Nt' .. � �`>L fir" mtt'e
:
R�nb '�Xf••'• SY,
6 .
4,
� � �i •a 41 6' . t } � ,� ` ' _ 4 - tii��` f, '•�,i � `S�y � � i V'4 �1. ,`�
• �±ice ��.'3 i�rdA: ... 1 �'� n'S.} � Lr t �"l,. i i. �,r
r 1 7
• T"e
rr�
•S
�t�l war►--� __.—_ _� .,;ri mul:._.:. :`."V.
REZONING APPL ICA TION
j
71
(,/q,;y�A'1. W I � & o ' ��.�i* 'tom i i `°+i >\ s �1• ,� �� f'+ "'�g. �'•�' � 3
s 1
w 6'
lb
r ilorwood Estates ' j; a s i�?" g y 44 '.
a s Section Oise <
' • '` ""`,
r �
I. l
+r ?� 4
�7rd 'iA
e
t s4A¢.'
{ y ;
17 If
BUTCHER PROPERTY
Ju/y, 2004
Prepared By.
gilbert w. clifford & associates
a divhtan of
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601
VOICE: (510) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-4493
Frederick County, Virginia
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS
FOR
REZONING RE VIEW AND APPROVAL
OF THE
BUTCHER PROPERTY
Shawnee Magisterial District
September, 2004
Prepared by:
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates
a division of
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Suite 200
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone: 540-667-2139 Fax: 540-665-0493
Butcher Impact Analysis Statement
Table of Contents
I. Application Form
II. Summary and Justification
III. Impact Analysis
A. Site History and Project Background
Figure > - Final Plat
B. Location and Access
Figure 2 - Location Map (aerial)
C. Site Suitability
Figure 3 - Planning Context
Figure 4 - Site Characteristics
Figure S - Generalized Development Plan (GDP)
D. Traffic
A Traffic ImpactAnayl sis of the Butcher Property
E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply
Figure 6 - Water and Sewer Extensions
F. Site Drainage
Figure 7 - Stormwater Management
G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
H. Historic Sites and Structures
I. Impact on Community Facilities
IV. Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model Output
V. Proffer Statement
VI. Agency Comments
VIL Survey Plat and Deed
VIII. Tax Ticket
I
APl'LIC4T"ION
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
To he completed by Planning Staff
Fee Amount Paid $
Zoning Amendment Number Date Received
PC Hearing Date BOS 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, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates/PYIRA Telephone: 667-2139
Address: 117 E_ Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester Virginia 22601
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name: Briarwood LC
Address: 205 N. Cameron Street
Telephone: 667-2120
Winchester, VA 22601
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: Charles E. Maddox Telephone: 667-2139
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location Map X Agency Comments X
Plat X Fees X
Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X
1
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to
rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
David B. Holliday
6. A) Current Use of the Property:
B) Proposed Use of the Property:
7. Adjoining Property: See Attached
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE
Residential & Vacant
RP -Single Family Detached (Urban)
ZONING
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers).
East of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the
Briarwood Subdivision.
2
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 of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning
District as described on page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 55-A-200
Magisterial:
Fire Service:
Rescue Service:
Shawnee
Greenwood
Greenwood
Districts
High School:
Middle School:
Elementary School
James Wood
James Wood
Sensenv Road
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
Acres
Current Zoning
Zoning Requested
29.9891
RA
RP
29.9891
Total acreage
to be rezoned
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family Home 69 Townhome Multi -Family
Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms
Office
Retail
Restaurant
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Service Station
Manufacturing
Warehouse
Other
3
12. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick
County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site
inspection purposes_
I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front
property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of
Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the
hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to
the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s) - Date
,2— 0,5f
W. C tffo ssociates
Date
Owner(s) Date `
riarwo
Date
4
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) David B, Holli (Phone) 667-2120
(Address) 205 ISI. Cameron Stree Winchester Vir ' 22601
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Deed Book 810 on Page 1279 and is described as
Parcel: 200 Lot: Block: A Section: 55 Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
Chris Mohn
(Name) PHRA — Charles E. Maddox, Jr. (Phone,) --.k67-2139
- address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200. Winchester. VirgjR a 22601
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including
X Rezoning (including proffers)
_ Conditional Use Permits
Master Development Pian (Preliminary and Final)
_ Subdivision
Site Plan
My attorney -iii -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered
conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until. it is otherwise rescinded or
modified_
In witness thereofI (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of , 41 200 -/ ,
State of Virginia, City/County of
9 y
R
LU1- n C To -wit: ', V e
a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument nally appeared before me
and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day ofj��00 (4"
My Commission Expires: an - J�
,14otary Public
Briarwood Section 3
IPS #
Name
Address
ZoninLy
Use
55-A-184
Bettie E Winslow
711 Greenwood. Road, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55-A-201
Greenwood Baptist Church
778 Greenwood Road, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Religious
55-A-201
Orrick Cemetery Co., Inc.
501 S. Braddock Street, Winchester, VA 22601
RA
55J-1-1-7
Rae an P & Jose R Rangel
102 Goldenrod Road, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
_.Agricultural
Residential
55J-1-1-8
Richard L & Sharon K Ivy
100 Goldenrod Road, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-1-9
Randy L & Heather C Stotler
101 Orion Ct., Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-1-10
Ruth H Tensley
103 Orion Ct., Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-1-11
Steven L Lamm & An ela Greenwalt
105 Orion Ct., Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-1-12
Marlon A & Cynthia D_Coffey
107 Orion Ct., Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-30
Robert & Jennifer Douglas
302 Lilys Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-31
Lamont L & Lorretta E Lashley
304 Lil s Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-32
Christopher L & Vicki L White
306 Lil s Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-33
Alan C & Diane L Van Amburg
308 Lil s Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-34
Rhonda Mason
310 Lil s Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-35
Richard C Edlich
312 Lil s Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-2-36
Jerry S King & Scot W Marsh
39078 Old Valley Pike, Strasburg, VA 22657
RP
Vacant
55J -1-2-36A
Briarwood Estates Homeowners Assoc.
P,O. Box 746, Stephens City, VA 22655
RP
Vacant
55J-1-6-112
John D & Susan L Wallace
318 Lil s Way, Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-6-114
David F & Lynn K Gwinn
202 Trefoil Ct., Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-6-1.15
Alan R Saville & L!4&h Ann Sweeney
204 Trefoil Ct., Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-6-116
Michael A & Stacey L Quick
206 Trefoil Ct., Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-6-117
Mark E & Laura L Quick
208 Trefoil Ct., Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
55J-1-6-118
Christopher S & Carla A Hammond
1 210 Trefoil Ct., Winchester, VA 22602
RP
Residential
II
SUJIff,4RY
Butcher
II. Summary and Justification
Impact Analysis Statement
The Butcher property lies wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer
and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County, with access to Greenwood Road via
Farmington Boulevard. The site is located adjacent to the Briarwood Estates subdivision,
which the applicant in this petition successfully rezoned and developed over the course of
the past decade. The development of the Butcher property will continue the established
development pattern in this area, and will be integrated with adjoining neighborhoods
through the extension of Farmington Boulevard.
The rezoning of the site for single family residential development is consistent with the
vision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses
to predominate within the UDA. The site is accordingly designated for residential land use
on the Eastern Frederick CoqM Long Range Land Use Plan map. By using available land
within the UDA, this rezoning promotes a dynamic housing market within the county's
designated growth area, and therefore advances the important goal of reducing development
pressure in the outlying rural areas.
The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will
appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development while simultaneously
contributing to the regional transportation network The single family residential land use
envisioned for the site is compatible with the surrounding community and consistent with
the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. As such, this rezoning request
merits favorable consideration and approval.
III
IMP4CT"ALYSIS
Butcher
Impact Analysis Statement
III. Impact Analysis
A. Site Background and History
The Butcher property consists of 29.9891 acres of land located within the UDA east of
Greenwood Road within the Red Bud magisterial district. The site is adjacent to the built
out Briarwood Estates subdivision, and is accessed via Farmington Boulevard. Prior use
of the site was as a single family residence that is now vacant.
The site is located in an actively developing residential area wherein public facilities have
been installed through prior development and are readily available for extension into the
site. Available facilities include water and sewer lines, road infrastructure, and regional
stormwater management.
The requested rezoning from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) will
enable continued development within the UDA in accord with the Comprehensive Policy
Plan. The rezoning will serve to integrate the site with the surrounding community,
which has already undergone the transition from the historical pattern of low density
residential land uses to the suburban intensities envisioned by policy.
The final plat is shown as Figurel.
(R/W VARIES)
C1 ROUTE 656 — GREENWOOD ROAD
`1RSCn
IRS
(n
13 Z
C, ry °
a
N C
—
^NII m
TRACT II
r 0.1943 Ac.
o JII W EETT,E E. WIRSLOV�'
D.B. 461, PG. 645
wll T.,M. 55-((A))-184
C?�
S31 '49'43"W
11.08'
STONE I) N31'49'43"E
8" LOCUST
1 � .
��
-
I 7 0
LCT
r
BRIARWOOD
�1
ESTATES Z t I
rr'
; LOT
29.9891 Ac.
au
/'LOT 9;6 f C, T S i = � �r 7 =
c
o
t Z�/
- —
r tfi�l r -I 1199" - FF .
1185.08' IRs '
O
N
,7
LC3T-
�m
W
IIRF31
U)__
r�r)7
z
- I 0a
v )I 32
u)
0 200 400 BOUNDARY SURVEY
OF THE PROPERTY OF
JAMES E. & ARDEYTH 0. BUTCHER
O� Dd D.B. 810, PG. 1279
1 "=ZOO �S RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
VA FRFDFRICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA s
x SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2004 i
o RANDY A. STOTW a gilbert w. Clifford & associates
U
No. 002342 A DIVISION OF
PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION [
CONSULTING ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - PLANNING C
117 E. PICCADILLY STREET, VANCHESiER, VIRGINIA 22601
(540) 667-2139 SHFFT 2 OF ?
(n
I 7 0
LCT
---
co � 35
IF
TRACT I
rr'
; LOT
29.9891 Ac.
.1 .0 o
,7
�m
W
J�
D
- I 0a
1 2
-- -- cn
S35'18'07"W
i7 p
.— 1166.60'
�iE rE�CE (tEAtVGEt2)
�
--- —o
z
LOT
OtihtlUlC CEMETERY COMPANY, lP C.
IRS , 11� rn
D.B. 337, PG. 175
�-
I2Fj LCT I
T. M. 55-((A))-201
I •.�
J,,
0 200 400 BOUNDARY SURVEY
OF THE PROPERTY OF
JAMES E. & ARDEYTH 0. BUTCHER
O� Dd D.B. 810, PG. 1279
1 "=ZOO �S RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
VA FRFDFRICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA s
x SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2004 i
o RANDY A. STOTW a gilbert w. Clifford & associates
U
No. 002342 A DIVISION OF
PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION [
CONSULTING ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - PLANNING C
117 E. PICCADILLY STREET, VANCHESiER, VIRGINIA 22601
(540) 667-2139 SHFFT 2 OF ?
SITE
VALLEY
VICINITY MAP
1"=1,500'
NOTES:
1. THE PROPERTIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAT ARE LOCATED ON ASSESSMENT MAP
55—((A))-200 AND ARE NOW IN THE NAME OF JAMES E. & ARDEYH 0.
BUTCHER PER DEED RECORDED AT DEED BOOK 810 AT PAGE 1279 AMONG
THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
2. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT
AND DOES NOT THEREFORE NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES AND
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON THE PROPERTY.
3. THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY.
4. THE EXISTENCE OF VEGETATED OR TIDAL WETLANDS WAS NEITHER
INVESTIGATES NOR CONFIRMED DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS SURVEY
BY THIS FIRM.
5. IRF DENOTES REBAR FOUND
6. IRS DENOTES REBAR TO BE SET
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
DELTA
RADIUS
LENGTH
TANGENT
BEARING CHORD
Cl
1'16'23"
547.96
12.18
6.09
N21'38'21 "E 12.18
BOUNDARY SURVEY
OF THE PROPERTY OF
0�,
JAMES E. Co.- ARDE� 0. BUTCHER
yTY4
P",
��AJ-,p
D.B. 810, PG. 1279
RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: AS NOTED DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2004
RAN
gilbert w. Clifford & associates
A DIVISION OF
PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CONSULTING ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - PLANNING
117 E. PICCADILLY STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
(540) 667-2139 SHEET 1 OF
Butcher
Impact Analysis Statement
B. Location and Access
The Butcher property is located east of Greenwood Road and south and adjacent to the
Briarwood Estates subdivision. Access is provided from Greenwood Road by Farmington
Boulevard, a minor collector roadway, which extends through Briarwood Estates - Section 1
to the west property boundary. Farmington Boulevard is intended to extend through the
Butcher property providing internal project access as well as interparcel connections.
The planned extension of Farmington Boulevard through the Butcher property will facilitate
its ultimate connection with Channing Drive. This connection will be completed through
development of an adjoining tract and result in a minor collector route parallel with Senseny
Road that is included in the Eastern Road Plan. (See Figure 2)
FIGURE 2
Butcher
Impact Analysis Statement
C. Site Suitability
The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder
development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental
features:
Butcher Property
Environmental Features
Total Project Area
29.99 Acres
Area in Flood Plain
0.00 Acres
0%
Area in Steep Slopes
0.00 Acres
0%
Area in Wetlands
0.9 Acres
3%
Lakes & Ponds
0.00 Acres
0%
The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick Count Virginia indicates that the
soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association,
with the particular geology being Martinsburg shale. Such geology is prevalent on land
located east of Interstate 81 and is not identified as prime farmland.
The site is predominantly wooded and no history of agricultural use has been identified. Site
elevations range from a high of 877 feet above sea level to a low of 838 feet above sea level
with slopes ranging from 3% to 20%.
A central intermittent stream channel bisects the site from south to north draining through
the Briarwood Estates and Carlisle Heights subdivisions with confluence to Abrams Creek.
Riparian buffers required by ordinance will be preserved on either side of the stream
channel. A small area of wetlands has been identified on the site coincident with the path of
the intermittent stream channel.
Water and sanitary sewer facilities are available via the Briarwood Subdivision and have been
sized to accommodate additional development. The site is ideally suited for use as a single
family detached subdivision similar in density to the surrounding area.
The following exhibits show the zoning context for the property (Figure 3), the
characteristics of the site (Figure 4), and the proposed Generalized Development Plan
(GDP) for the project (Figure 5).
It,
4$1 4-
ter` E
�.. .. °.` del- ,
TY
mad
h
4v
Ot
la
BUTCHER PROPfI�TY � gilbert w. clifford & associates
a division of
ZONING CONTEXT Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc
0 117 E vscadMy st rmdmte., Mho 22601
f7?E'MWVff CObNTY, I/W814 Y0M- (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
FIGURE 4
Butcher
Impact Analysis Statement
D. Traffic
A traffic impact analysis (TTA) was prepared for this application using composite data
collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic
generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, the UA projects
that the proposed development will produce 690 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA
further indicates that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate
the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions.
The TIA reveals modest peak hour delays at the Greenwood Road (Route 656) intersections
with Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Senseny Road (Route 657), which are attributable to
anticipated background traffic growth.
Farmington Boulevard will provide access to the project from Greenwood Road and will be
extended by the applicant through the project to the east boundary. Construction of
Farmington Boulevard will include traffic calming measures (such as "chokers") to enhance
traffic control and improve safety for residents along the roadway. A system of local streets
connecting with Farmington Boulevard will provide a satisfactory and manageable internal
transportation system for the development.
From a regional perspective, construction of the segment of Farmington Boulevard through
the Butcher Property furthers implementation of the transportation improvements outlined
by the Eastern Road Plan. The extension of Farmington Boulevard to its ultimate
connection with Channing Drive will complete a minor collector route parallel to Senseny
Road that will contribute to improved traffic conditions in the area.
As currently aligned, Farmington Boulevard intersects with Greenwood Road opposite the
planned location of Abrams Pointe Boulevard, which will serve as the primary access for the
yet to be developed Abrams Pointe project to the west. This intersection will ultimately be
signalized when warranted by VDOT, with the Abrams Pointe development already
committed to sharing 50% of the cost. The applicant has proffered to enter into a
signalization agreement with VDOT to contribute 25% of the cost of signal installation.
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the
Butcher Property
Located in:
Frederick County, Virginia
Prepared for:
Dave Holliday
205 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA
22601
Prepared by:
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
September 8, 2004
(Original Submission: June 14, 2004)
208 Church Street, S.E
Leesburg, Virginia 20175
R
PH
T 703.777.3616
F 703..777.372.372 5
September 8, 2004
(Original Submission: June 14, 2004)
OVERVIEW
Report Summary
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to
present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Butcher Property to be located at
the end of Farmington Boulevard, east of Greenwood Road (Route 656), in Frederick
County, Virginia. The proposed project will include a total of 69 residential units with
sole access provided via Farmington Boulevard. Built -out will occur over a single phase
by the year 2008. PHR+A has provided Figure 1 to illustrate the location of the Butcher
Property with respect to the surrounding roadway network. The study area encompasses
Greenwood Road from Valley Mill Road (Route 659) to Route 657.
Methodology
The traffic impacts accompanying the Butcher Property site were obtained through
a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document:
Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of
impact,
• Calculation of the Butcher Property trip generation,
• Distribution and assignment of the Butcher Property generated trips onto the completed
` road network,
• Analysis of capacity and levels of service using the newest version of the highway
capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the
intersections of Greenwood Road / Valley Mill Road and Greenwood Road/ Route 657. In
order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along the study area roadway links, a
"k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%
was assumed. Existing traffic volumes were obtained along Farmington Boulevard
(Briarwood Subdivision Estates) based upon trip generation results for 88 existing single
family detached residential units as calculated using the 7th Edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 1 is provided to show the
existing trip generation results along Farmington Boulevard. All count data are provided
in the appendix section of this report.
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8, 2004
Page i
No Scale
F -PHP` A- -
I
I figure 1
PRA
1 1
Butcher Property
Vicinitv Map
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8, 2004
Page 2
_ "r7
i jt
!_1
- .. Sok . f5 �•_.
E
-'
4a
LL
SITE
F -PHP` A- -
I
I figure 1
PRA
1 1
Butcher Property
Vicinitv Map
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8, 2004
Page 2
Table 1
Existing Land Uses along Farmington Boulevard
Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
-ode Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
210 Single -Family Detached 88 units 18 53 71 61 34 96 880
Total 18 53 71 61 34 96 880
Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AWPM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry
and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are
included in the Appendix section of this report.
2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes along Greenwood Road, Route 657
and Valley Mill Road (west of Greenwood Road) using a conservative growth rate of five
percent (5%) per year through Year 2008. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future
"other developments" located along Channing Drive and Valley Mill Road were included.
The following approved, but not yet completed, "other developments" were considered:
• Toll Brothers;
• Channing Drive Residential;
• Giles Farm;
• Fieldstone;
• Abram's Pointe (Including Coventry Court Subdivision).
Note: Coventry Court trips combined with Abrams Point are consistent with the revised
Master Development Plan.
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
R-A
September 8, 2 e 3H
Page 3
No Scale
n �
n
q
a11eYA(i11
Ro, '
ad n
8($9)
(4-1)$� 6 2(41)
(74)29-.;0
(24$) 7$ `
1
foo
oc
�o
�
01
ti
3j(24)
r
16(10)
j
SITE
656
q--
X0000
00
L 48(72)
L4•
192(144)
j�
657
d' 9(37) Senseny Road
(179)75—.#
(371)73 �►
�� r
(49)39—%w
n
j
J J
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
A YP-tn
Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions
RA
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
PH September 8, 2004
4
Page 4
No Scale
Unsignalized
V. Intersection
`y M11 Road Q
04.
fF�C fir► s C(F��
/a"
Lv)�6m)
Unsignalized
Intersection
Road
C(Q
(C)C 1
n
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(B)
65
&\yard
SITE
659
*Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
PH'��A
September 8, 2004
Page 5
Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip
Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 2 to summarize the 2008 "other
developments" trip generation.
Table 2
"Other Developments" along Valley Mill Road/Channing Road
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use
Amount
AM Peak Hour
In Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
ADT
210
Single -Family Detached
1,164 units
206
618
824
627
353
980
11,640
230
Townhouse/Condo
207 units
15
76
91
75
37
112
1,801
820
Retail
120,000 SF
109
69
178
340
368
708
7,665
Total
330
763
1,093
1,042
758
1,800
21,105
The total 2008 background conditions were determined by summating the existing
traffic volumes, the annual growth through 2008 and the "other developments" (Table 2)
trip assignments. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour
traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the
corresponding 2008 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service.
All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this
report.
PHP ---,A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8, 2004
Page 6
Figure 4 2008 Background Traffic Conditions
PH"'A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8, 2004
Page 7
N
� O
No Scale ROad
%..434(3,
1)
(52)
9(S2)
(128)62
)35)
(313)96
659
a
�-
a�°
°
3°
-ON
�I~i
i 37(,4
r
16( 16(10)
jr►
F
SITE
656
a^ P-
" 00
C-4 r M
ti
Rn r L 61(92)
1 4..� 245(184)
657 mr- 11(47) Sensen Road
1 (228)96)
(474)93 ../
(63)50 a
�J
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
�T -,,P+
Figure 4 2008 Background Traffic Conditions
PH"'A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8, 2004
Page 7
No Scale
Figure 5
ValleySignalized
A.1U 4Q Intersection
Road 4 ( A�. LOS = C(D)
(C) " 'r► 10)
C)
4�
Q�1
Fay n U7o (p
Unsignalized &�ulovard
Intersection
656
U
oa
1 C(Q
Road r ��
657
(C)C
n
Signalized d
Intersection
LOS = QQ
SITE
*Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
PH
R—A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I3utcher Property
September 8, 2 e 8
Page 8
PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION
The total trips produced by and attracted to the Butcher Property were established
using equations and rates provided in the 7th_ Edition of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 3 shows the trip generation results for
the proposed Butcher Property site.
Table 3
Butcher Property
Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour 1'M Peak Hour
Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690
Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network
surrounding the proposed site. Figure 6 represents the distribution percentages for trips
produced by and attracted to the Butcher Property development. Figure 7 shows the
respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at key
locations within the study area.
2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Butcher Property assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2008 background
traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008
build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the
study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak
hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the
Appendix section of this report.
CONCLUSION
The traffic impacts associated with the Butcher Property development are
acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections will maintain acceptable overall
levels of service "D" or better for 2008 build -out conditions. The intersection of
Greenwood Road / Valley Mill Road will require traffic signalization, however, this will be
required with or without the proposed development.
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8+A
, 2004
H Page 9
E 1 4
No Scale
� 1 Palle
�Ii11 Road
659 1
1
C?
b�
o°
.3
¢,4
VSo
F�mington Bou/eyard
SITE
656
1 Senseny Road 657 i 1
1 — 1 d
I
1
Figure 6
PH�
Trip Distribution Percentages
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8, 2004
Page 10
At
No Scale t'a11eYAf, �'
(5)2`
ro
�o
oo�
�
a4
�{o
2q(. 6)
jj 1803)
SITE
656
J I L -
fSenseny Road
657 lk
%
0
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Aver!
Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8, 2004
RA Page 11
PH
a ,
�Z�
h
No Scale ,alleyn,111Road r ^ 00
r %-.4.34(3, I
(52)74 � p 4( 35)
(178)62 (55)
(318)g8� ) Ie
Figure 8
)
4(23
)
Road
zz �d
2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions
SITE
� M �
o
659
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Avern!e Daily Trips I
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
P R+A
September 8, 2004
HPage 12
%.63(97)
11 L
4-245(184)
,r- 11(47)
657
(236)98--.#
(474)93
(63)50—%a
��G
Road
zz �d
2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions
SITE
� M �
o
659
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Avern!e Daily Trips I
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
P R+A
September 8, 2004
HPage 12
No Scale
Senseny Road
Figure 9
Valle Signalized
y�liII A0 Intersection
*4 f I%,. LOS = C(D)
�djc a- y *" DSD)
Ll�
Unsignalized
Intersection
U
t C(C)
(C)C
n
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
Gr
IC-1
<D V
SITE
*Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
'
PH
�� er A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property
September 8, 2004
Page 13
APPENDIX
HCS -2000 Worksheets
Traffic Counts
Butcher
Impact Analysis ,Statement
E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply
Gravity sewer of adequate size (8") will be extended from the complete Briarwood system to
the north. An 8" water main will be extended from Farmington Blvd to the west and
terminate at the east property line providing for future extension and looping with the
Channing Drive system. A network of local piping systems will connect to these existing
facilities to provide service to the individual lots (see Figure 6). A maximum of 69 single
family homes will be served thus creating a demand for water and discharge for sewer of
approximately 13,800 gpd. All facilities will meet FCSA requirements for ownership by the
agency.
FIGURE 6
Butcher
Impact Analysis Statement
F. Site Drainage
Site drainage collects and leaves the site to the north via the intermittent stream channel. It
is anticipated that low impact development techniques together with good erosion control
practice will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. The preservation of riparian
buffers containing mature woodlands will provide significant mitigation of nutrient losses.
Actual specification of temporary and permanent facilities will be provided with final
engineering and will comply with all County, State and Federal regulations.
Street drainage will be provided by an enclosed storm sewer pursuant to VDOT standards.
Special emphasis will be made to protect the stream channel through application of passive
stormwater mitigation techniques.
Figure 7 depicts the stormwater management plan for the Butcher site.
FIGURE 7
Butcher
Impact Analysis Statement
G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
The 69 single family detached lots will produce approximately 12 lbs. of solid waste per day
for a total of 828 lbs. per day (.41 T/day) for the project. Solid waste from the project will
be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection at citizen
convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood
residents.
Butcher
H. Historic Sites and Structures
There are no historic sites or structures impacted by this rezoning.
Impact Analysis Statement
Butcher
Impact Analysis Statement
Impact on Community Facilities
The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run by the county staff to reflect individual
and collective fiscal impacts on community facilities. The applicant has offered per unit
monetary contributions with the proffer statement equivalent to the calculated impacts to
mitigate the effects on Frederick County. Specifically, the applicant has proffered to
contribute $10,206 per unit at the time of building permit issuance. The total contribution is
proffered to be allocated as follows:
■ Fire and Rescue:
$889.00 per unit
■ Public Schools:
$7,571.00 per unit
■ Recreation & Parks:
$1,288.00 per unit
■ Library:
$213.00 per unit
■ Sheriff's Office:
$42.00 per unit
■ Administration:
$203.00 per unit
TOTAL: $10,206 per unit
An escalator clause is included with the proffer statement to mitigate the effects of
inflation on the value of the proffered monetary contributions. This provision stipulates
that any monetary contributions proffered by the applicant that are paid after 30 months
from the date of rezoning approval will be adjusted pursuant to the Urban Consumer
Price Index (CPI -U).
IV
FREDERICI�COl2VTFIMT 4CT
fIO-DII
Ld
Q
a -
W
A
t0
Z
H
Z
a
0-
O
A
LL
to
m
m
LD
Ln
Lo
LD
m
v
Lr)
v
m
CK)
N
N
N
LO
CD
I OUTPUT MODULE
APPLICANT: Butcher Trad
Net Fiscal Impact
I
( LAND USE TYPE RP
( REAL EST VAL $0,177,00D
Casts of IMHO Credit; Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid tr1"
Required
Total Potenlial
Adjustment For
I FIRE & RESCUE = 4
(entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cop, Future CIPI
Capital Facilities col sum only) ODer Cao E&Ap Expendf1? bt SS. Taxes. Other
Tax Credits
Revenue. Net Capftal Net Cost Per
I
nad usted
Cost Balance Fact es Impact Dwelling Unit
Fire and Rescue Department
Elementary Schools
$300,138
$D
SO ?62.2112 $889 I
I Middle Schools
( High Schools
$176,554 $49,109 5236,393
$258.828
F
5287,�D?.
-
S205,545 $529,975 $ 7;571
( Parks and Recreation
( Public Library
$107.450 $24,216
516,680
$24,216
_ I
$17,313 $90,137 $1,266
I Shews Offices
( Administration Building
$5,224$
$11,058 $9,059 $0 $2,258
$14.;78`8
$11,317
$3,735 $14,945 $213
$8,091 $2,965 $42 I
Other Miscellaneous Far liGlas
$0
--SIIf,iQ1 $17,455 $19,272
S0
$0 $14,188 $203 1
$36,727
$26.257 $0 3�
I SS: SUET X987,197 7AL $71,62�3 �257,6�5 $3 ,598
I LENST F15CrAL IMPACT $M.g41
$D
$354,985
I
8706,255 $10,489 I
I NES CAP FACILITIES IMPACT
$0
59 0 $0
(
I
57 8,255 $10, 89
E
INDEX: "t .0'° If Cap, Equjp Induced 19
I
(
I
I NDE*-. "1.0" if Rpv-�4s1 Sal, 1Q.0' if Ratio to Qo Avg: 0.0
PLANNING DEPT P E£RENgES
Rev-Cpst �ai s
0.533
1.b 140 liaiid to CA vg:
0.715
j t4ETHOgpL�OGY: 1
{
---
Capital faeifdies requirements are input to (tie first column as caloLlatpd ih (he midej.
-�-M-- - _..
2.
Net Fiscal Impact NPV horn operations calcufgtions is input in rM4 total of second cotumin
I
(zero if ne9atike}; included are the one tirr►� IaMesAfes for one yef r only�1 full vilup..
I
I 3.
NPV di fylurd oiler c ail equii taxes paid in .Third columna calcul�aegl in keel iaiioacrls.
I 4.
NPV bf Muni cepitai expert Iture taxes paltrt i4 touhh pof Jilcuiated in pari iiiilpocls.
5.
,s
NPV df fuluini takes paid to bring current cdiurlty ud t0 starlddrd fob nqw t�taiities, ht
j
( 6
calculbled for earth My facility.
Columns three throu h fjve in# added as p6tential crbpfts aggfnsl {hq calk uialed t�p tat
I
facilities requuemenLk. Thele are adjusted for per6hi of 6ac1s cdvered 0 the 4veituei
I
I
from the project (actual, or as ratio to op- icr aR rdsidl rw ii l develbptgenl).
I
I NOTE: Proffer calculations do pot irrclpde include interest because Ihey are cash payalienis uli front. C+mdRs do include interets( If the Rrojecu, are dr#bt financed.
I NOTES: Meda` Run Dete 002/04 GMM
I Projebt gesririptiw- Assurfres 70 Tingle Iimily�tached dwellinbs on 29.t,9 acFes zoned RP bistricl (Pik 55,A•200)
I
I
I
Due to changing condihar�a as odi(ec1 wit deveibprnerd in the dvv*, 4he results of this
I Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 ddys from thg n►ddel nun date.
I
0
PROFFER ST4TE�1-ZNT
PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ. # RA to RP
PROPERTY. 29.99 Acres
Tax Map Parcel 55-A-200 (the "Property")
RECORD OWNER Briarwood LC
APPLICANT:
David B. Holliday
PROJECT NAME:
Butcher Property
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS:
September 7, 2004
RE VISION DATA:
N/A
The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property
("Property'), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions,
which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that
the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these
proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are
contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning
which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of
County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the
appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit
development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day
following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been
appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. If
this application is denied by the Board, but in the event that an appeal is for any reason
thereafter remanded to the Board for reconsideration by a court of competent jurisdiction, then
these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn unless the Applicant shall affirmatively readopt all or
any portion hereof in a writing specifically for that purpose.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or
reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any
provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of
development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other
proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced
herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used
in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled
"Generalized Development Plan, Butcher Property' dated July 1, 2004 (the "GDP"), and shall
include the following:
LAND USE:
Li Areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in
conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP") zoning
district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All residential development
on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be
approved by Frederick County.
Page 1 of 6
Butcher Proffer Statement
1.2 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 69
single family detached dwelling units.
1.3 The project shall be comprised solely of single family, detached housing types.
2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN
APPROVALS:
2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in
accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and
this Butcher Proffer Statement as approved by the Board.
3. FIRE & RESCUE:
3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per dwelling unit
for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for
each single family detached unit.
4. SCHOOLS:
4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per dwelling
unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each
single family detached unit except those that may be designated as "age
i restricted".
5. PARKS & OPEN SPACE:
5.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,288.00 per dwelling
unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for
each single family detached unit.
6. LIBRARIES:
6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per dwelling unit
for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each
such single family detached unit.
7. SHERIFF'S OFFICE
7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $42.00 per dwelling unit
for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of building permit for each such unit.
8. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $203.00 per dwelling unit
for construction of a general governmental administration building upon
issuance of building permit for each suchunit.
t.
Page 2 of 6
Butcher Proffer Statement
9. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION:
9.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a homeowners' association
(hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance
and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be
established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for
each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other
responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as
may be required for such HOA herein.
9.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA
shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not
otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of
residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, if they decide to use
a commercial collection company, (iv) responsibility for the perpetual
maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer
areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted
within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate
instrument and (v) responsibility for payment for maintenance of streetlights.
10. WATER & SEWER
10.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water
and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All
water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority.
11. ENVIRONMENT:
11.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater
Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results in
the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of
construction of any such facility.
12. TRANSPORTATION:
12.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with
the study entitled "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Butcher Property," prepared
by Patton Harris Rust & Associated, dated September 8, 2004 (the "TIA"). The
Applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this
project.
12.2 The Applicant shall enter into a signalization agreement with the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) for a pro -rata share of the cost of
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Farmington Boulevard and
Greenwood Road.
Page 3 of 6
Butcher Proffer Statement
12.3 The extension of Farmington Boulevard through the project shall be designed
and constructed to include traffic calming measures acceptable to VDOT.
13. ESCALATOR CLAUSE:
13.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are
paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 30
months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said
contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary
contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after
30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in
accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U) published by the
United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid,
they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 24
months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U
to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -
compounded.
SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES
Page 4 of 6
Butcher Proffer Statement
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID B. HOLLIDAY
By:
Title:
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit:
The foregoing instrume t was acknowledged before me this(112 day
o , 2004, by ` ` i jo-
Mycommission expires
Notary Public 14
Page 5 of 6
84
- Steil i
55—A
ZONED:
LAMIlf
Cq INC.
9
K;:','&
SA WEE
C.4:L
JSJ-7-8'1'l
GRFICK CElTTERY CO, INC.
55—A-201
ZONFD: RA
USE: C METRY
BUTCHER PROPERTY gilbert w. Clifford & associates
a division of
o GENERAL/ZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN Patton, Norris, Rust &Associates, pc
p�117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN/A YoICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
Page 6 of 6
AGENCYCOJ1f1E'NTS
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
August 6, 2004 FAX: 540/678-0682
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E.
Vice President
Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc.
a division of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c.
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Butcher Rezoning
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Chuck:
We have completed our review of the proposed Butcher rezoning and offer the following
comments:
1) The traffic impact analysis indicates that the proposed project will include 65 single family
dwellings. The remainder of the rezoning application including the impact model indicates
70 dwellings. This conflict needs to be corrected accordingly.
2) The discussion of solid waste disposal facilities indicates that the residents will use
Frederick County dumpster sites for disposal of solid waste. In all probability, the
residents will attempt to use the Greenwood convenience site located adjacent to the
proposed project behind the Greenwood Fire Hall. However, the current site has exceeded
capacity because of recent development in the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road area. The
proposed development on the Butcher property will only serve to further exacerbate the
problem. A curbside program implemented by the homeowners' association would be a
preferable approach to solid waste disposal to avoid the long lines at the convenience site.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss comment #2 in greater detail.
Sincerely,
Harvey E.(S rawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
HES/rls
cc: Mark R. Cheran, Interim Zoning and Subdivision Administrator
file
A: \hutch a rrezcom.wpd
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
August 2, 2004
Mr. Charles E. Maddox
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates. Inc.
117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments
Butcher Rezoning
Dear Mr. Maddox:
Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact
historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by
the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures
located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted
that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify
any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact.
'hank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
�0
f
G r�
Candice E. Mills
Planner I
CEM/bad
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Rezoning Comments Butcher
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Mail to:
Frederick County
Dept. of Planning & Development
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
(540) 665-5651
Hand deliver to:
Frederick County
Dept. of Planning & Development
Co. Administration Bldg., 4th Floor
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Historic
Resources Advisory Board with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location
map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139
Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Location of Property:
East of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the Briarwood Subdivision.
Current Zoning:
Zoning Requested:
Acreage:
Advisory Board Comments:
Signature &Date:
Notice to Advisory Board — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
8
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
COMMISSI NER EDINBURG, VA 22824
July 27, 2004
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P.
G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Ref: Butcher Rezoning
Frederick County
Dear Chuck:
JERRY A. COPP
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TEL (540) 984-5600
FAX(540)984-5607
The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable
impact on Farmington Boulevard and Greenwood Road. These route are the VDOT roadways
which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is offering the
following comments in regards to the rezoning submittal:
• The Traffic Impact Analysis has been forward to our District Office for review.
Comments will be forthcoming.
• The layout for the proposed subdivision as shown on Figure 4, although very preliminary
in nature, will require some type of traffic calming measure on Farmington Boulevard. I
am providing this comment at this stage of the development approval since it could
potentially have an impact on the number of lots in the subdivision.
• Please use a growth rate of 5% for the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
• It appears you did not include any of the proposed traffic from the development formerly
known as Coventry Court Subdivision.
• Please include the intersection of Route 657 and 656 in your study area for the TIA.
• In your Table II, please label your "Other Developments" with the appropriate name so
the number of units can be verified.
• On your Figure 6, Trip Distribution Percentages, VDOT does not agree with your
percentages showing no traffic heading east on Valley Mill Road. We believe some
motorists will in fact utilize this road to access Route 7.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P.
Ref: Butcher Property
July 27, 2004
Page #2
• There appears to be no transportation proffers in this rezoning submittal although your
development is in fact adding traffic to this area. Some suggested proffers could include
a contribution to the improvement of Valley Mill Road from the intersection with
Greenwood out to Route 7 East. In addition, a contribution could be applied to the
reconstruction of the Route 656 South and Route 657 intersection to be aligned with
Greenwood Road at the recently reconstructed portion. Lastly a suggested proffer could
include a contribution to a future signal at the intersection of Farmington Boulevard and
Greenwood Road.
• A signalization agreement shall be required for the intersection of Farmington Boulevard
and Greenwood Road, Route 656.
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, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way
needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway
improvements and drainage. 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.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.
--Si erel
X,
Ben H. Lineberry, J4"P.E.
Trans. Assistant Resident Engineer
BHL/rf
Enclosure — Comment Sheet
Rezonin,- Comments Butcher
Virginia Department of Transportation
Mail to:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation
Attn: Resident Engineer
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
Hand deliver to:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation
Attn: Resident Engineer
14031 Old Valley Pike
Winchester, VA 22601
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia
Department of Transportation with their review. Attach three copies of your application form,
location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other
pertinent information.
Applicant's Name
Mailing Address
Location of Property:
Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc.
c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (540)667-2139
East of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the Briarwood Subdivision.
Current Zoning:
Zoning Requested:
Acreage:
Virginia Department of Transportation Comments:
.
VDOT Signature & Date: ;? - -
Notice to Advisory Board — Please turn This form to the Applicant
SERVING THE
TOP OF VIRGINIA /
July 26, 2004
WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT
491 AIRPORT ROAD
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602
(540) 662-2422
Chuck Maddox, P.E.
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates
117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
1P'inrhesteY, Virginia 22601
Re: Rezoning Comments
Butcher Property
Redbud Magisterial District
Dear Mr. Maddox:
The above referenced proposal was reviewed. While the proposed development
lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the
proposed site plan will not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe
operations of the Winchester Regional Airport.
Sincerely,
Serena R. Manuel
Executive Director
RezoninIZ Comments Butcher
Mail to:
Winchester Regional Airport
Attn: Executive Director
491 Airport Road
Winchester, VA 22602
(540) 662-2422
Winchester Regional Airport
Hand deliver to:
Winchester Regional Airport
Attn: Executive Director
491 Airport Road
Winchester, VA
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Winchester
Regional Airport with their review. Attach a copy of you application form, location map,
proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name
Mailing Address
Location of Property:
Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc.
c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr. P.E. VP
117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (540)667-2139
East of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the Briarwood Subdivision.
Current Zoning: Zoning Requested:
Winchester Regional Airport's Comments
Acreage:
Winchester Regional Airport Signature & Date: cam L� GAJ - —
Notice to Winchester Regional Airport – Please Return This Form to the Applicant
U
Rezoning Comments Butcher
Frederick County Department of Geographic Information Services (GIS)
Attn: Marcus Lemasters, GIS Director
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the
Department of GIS with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map,
proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139
Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Location of Property:
East of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the Briarwood Subdivision.
Current Zoning:
Zoning Requested:
Acreage:
Department of GIS Comments:
No comment at this time. Please submit
road names for review and approval when they have been determined.
GIS Signature & Date:
Notice to Dept. of GIS —
Return This Form to tfhe Applicant
21
Rezoning Comments Butelier
Fr fuer lwlir Cvuatyy Depart cnt vas Parks & RecreatUDII
LIAI to: Hand deliver to:
Fre&rick County Txzdeaicic County
IIcpt,of Parks & Recreation_ went of -Parks-& Recreation
i 7v�loifh-Keut,i_S.wi6ata ♦i.iauiu- niS+u:aai,,iiivug., "4-�II
vor
Winchester,
VA 22601 107 North Tient Street
(540) 555-5578 Winchester, VA 22601
Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139
Mailing Address: c/o C. E. IvladTo Jr. P -E., SIP
117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 2001- -
Wmchester, SIA 22601
Location of Property:
East of Greenwood Road (Route 65", south and adjacent to the Briarwood Suuulvisiion.
Current Zoning:
Tob.fng Requested]- Acreage:
Dept. -of Parks -&- reation -Cvnnnen#s:
The Biltr-her PTO ty re oaing- appl sat-ior-apReags- t -o- have addressed the
-open-space -requirements -and soffe-rs a monetary -p-roffer -tom 3.p offset
the wand f4ar -leisure servlc-es -whdrh vill be -crated -by xUs__development.
Signature $ Bate: ' _. _ _ 7/21/04:
NO -lice to _Cae of ks Si Recreattmnr- PYejs-Return-This-Form to the Applicant
12
E
A
d crci
55 -- /I --n2 CL-'
RezoninI4 Comments Butcher
Frederick — Winchester Health Department
Mail to:
Frederick -Winchester Health Dept
Attn: Sanitation Engineer
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
(540) 722-3480
Hand deliver to:
Frederick -Winchester Health Dept.
Attn: Sanitation Engineer
107 North Kent St., Suite 201
Winchester, VA 22601
(540) 722-3480
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick -
Winchester Health Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form,
location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139
Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Location of Property:
East of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the Briarwood Subdivision.
Current Zoning:
Zoning Requested:
Acreage:
Frederick — Winchester Health Department's Comments:
h /�!7'!.e/L `" A6 dh%GG 11 /tel aO /,Ox3r
01
O/V",f 41' eroZJ
zf
Signature & Date:
Notice to _ ealth Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
15
RezoninLy Comments Butcher
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority
Mail to:
Fred-Winc Service Authority
Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director
P.Q. Box 43
Winchester, VA 22604
(540) 722-3579
Hand deliver to:
Fred--Winc Service Authority
Attn: Jesse W. Moffett
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the
Department of Public Works with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location
map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139
Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Location of Property:
East of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the Briarwood Subdivision.
Current Zoning:
Zoning Requested:
Fred -Wine Service Authority's Comments:
Fred-Winc Service A Avrity,s 40_�►
Signature & Date: U.AA. •-l1/�
7
Acreage:
Notice to Fred-Winc Service Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
23
f�
Frederick County Public Schools
Administrative Assistant Steve Kapocsi
to the Superintendent kapocsis@frederick.kl2.va.us
July 12, 2004
Chuck Maddox, P.E.
Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc.
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Butcher Rezoning
Dear Mr. Maddox:
This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning
application for the proposed Butcher rezoning project, Based on the information provided, it is
anticipated that the proposed 70 single family homes, will yield 12 high school students, 10
middle school students, and 28 elementary school students for a total of 50 new students upon
build -out.
Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this
area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. The cumulative
impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved,
undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school
facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments.
The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered
during the approval process.
Respectfully Yours,
Steve apocsi
Assistant Superintendent For Administration
Copy: William C. Dean, Ph. D., Superintendent of Schools
Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration
1415 Amherst Street www.frederick.kl2.va.us 540-662-3889 ext. 112
P.C. Box 3508 540545-2439
Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 540-662-3890 fax
RezoninLi Comments Butcher
Mail to:
Frederick Co. Fire Marshal
107 N. Kent St.
Winchester, VA 22601
(540) 665-6350
Frederick County Fire Marshal
Hand deliver to:
Frederick Co. Fire & Rescue Dept.
Attn: Fire Marshal
Co. Administration Bldg., 1" Floor
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick
County Fire Marshal with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map,
proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assac., Inc._Phone: (540)667-2139
Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP
117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Location of Property:
East of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the Briarwood Subdivision.
Current Zoning:
Zoning Requested:
Acreage: _
Fire Marshal's Comments:
Fire Marshal's Signature & Date���
Notice to Marshal — please Retu _ This Form to the Applicant
11
Control number
RZ04-0012
Project Name
Butcher Property Rezoning
Address
117 E.Piccadilly Street Suite 200
Type Application
Rezoning
Current Zoning
RA
Automatic Sprinkler System
No
Other recommendation
Frederick County Fire and Rescue
Department
office of the Fire Marshal
Pian Review and Comments
Date received
7/7/2004
City
Winchester
Tax ID Number
55-A-200
Date reviewed
7/9/2004
Applicant
G.W.Clifford & Associates
State Zip
VA 22601
Fire District
18
Recommendations
Automatic Fire Alarm System
No
Date Revised
Applicant Phone
540-667-2139
Rescue District
18
Election District
Shawnee
Residential Sprinkler System
Yes
Requirements
Emergency Vehicle Access Hydrant Location Fire Lane Required
Not Identified Not Identified Yes
Siamese Location Roadway/Aisleway Width Special Hazards
Not Identified Not Identified No
Emergency Vehicle Access Comments
i�1UniG0a: ;Vater
sifBtc, ?em"Cn tiGUnt?LotP SeCtiQn C-0-4T^ht1RG shailneee
Access Comments
Fire hydrants shall be located Within 3 feet of the cure and landscaping shall not interfer witil it's operatics_
Additional Comments
Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature
Yes Timothy L Welsh {Title
FM MMSH L, FRE®EI It* --
Rezoning Comments Butcher
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Mail to:
Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority
Attn: Engineer
P.O. Box 1877
Winchester, VA 22604
(540) 868-1061
Hand deliver to:
Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority
Attn: Engineer
315 Tasker Road
Stephens City, VA
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation
Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer
statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139
Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Location of Property:
East of Greenwood Road (Route 656), south and adjacent to the Briarwood Subdivision.
Current Zoning:
Zoning Requested:
Acreage:
Sanitation Authority Comments:
Alt.? CQ,4rw-,e�Fi/1/%�
17,
Sanitation Authority Signature &Date: y
Notice to Sanitation Autho ty — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
14
VII
SUR VEFPI, 4 T4 (f- DEED
8
Mid
65g ROME—��
s11E
.3'
�o
'Y ye
VICINITY MAP
1"=1,500'
NOTES:
1. THE PROPERTIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAT ARE LOCATED ON ASSESSMENT MAP
55—((A))-200 AND ARE NOW IN THE NAME OF JAMES E. & ARDEYH 0.
BUTCHER PER DEED RECORDED AT DEED BOOK�810 AT PAGE 1279 AMONG
THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
2. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT
AND DOES NOT THEREFORE NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES AND
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ON THE PROPERTY.
3. THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY.
4. THE EXISTENCE OF VEGETATED OR TIDAL WETLANDS WAS NEITHER
INVESTIGATES NOR CONFIRMED DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS SURVEY
BY THIS FIRM.
5. IRF DENOTES REBAR FOUND
6. IRS DENOTES REBAR TO BE SET
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
DELTA
RADIUS
LENGTH
I TANGENT
BEARING CHORD
Cl
1'16'23"
1 547.96
12.18
6.09
N21'38'21"E 12.18
BOUNDARY SURVEY
OF THE PROPERTY OF o
—aw-el.—
�TH OF
JAMES E. & ARDEYTH 0. BUTCHER
D.B. 810, PG. 1279
'PON
RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK v NI i i 'ORGINIA r
y vDATE:
�SCALE:
RA
AS NOTED FEBRUARY 2, 2004
gilbert w. Clifford & associates
A DIVISION OF
JSTOMS
PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 0
CONSULTING ENGINEERING -LAND SURVEYING -PLANNINGa
117 E_ PICCADILLY STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 w
(540) 667-2139 SHEET 1 OF 2
(R/W VARIES)
Cl ROUTE 656 — GREENWOOD
IRs — ROAD
SET
STONE
FOUND z
U1
Cb
rn
N
O
z
m
-q
m
z
D
O
m
I ��
S31'49'43"W
11.08' ,
N31 '49'43"E
BRIAAWOOD�
ESTATES / z
�l o
0
% O l
/LOT 9 o
IRF) I
1185.08'
TRACT 1
29.9891 Ac.
,
.,
LOT 8 1 LOT 7i
� Z
J
oPv
� v
N
�
0
�o
41I
rri
loi
In C�nNI�
ul CAM
to
`m
TRACT II
c
0.1943 Ac.
J
a o> rn
EETTiE E. WINSLOW
JII
.Loll - �
D.B. 461, PG. 645
�C,JII CA
T -M- 55-((4))-184
SET
STONE
FOUND z
U1
Cb
rn
N
O
z
m
-q
m
z
D
O
m
I ��
S31'49'43"W
11.08' ,
N31 '49'43"E
BRIAAWOOD�
ESTATES / z
�l o
0
% O l
/LOT 9 o
IRF) I
1185.08'
TRACT 1
29.9891 Ac.
,
.,
zi LOT =4
v
o -
°!LOT -
rn 34
N I LOT—
cD 35
LOT
36
Q4 I F Cu
f
10
0 pT o
o
i rn 4�-
116 2
8" LOCUST 535'18'07"W _ �O� �m
1166.60' - -
4"rIFE rENCE (h"EANDERS) ^o
z
ORf;ICK CEMETERY COP�IPANY, INC. IRS] 1108 f rn
Q.B. 337, PG. 179
} /
T,ia9• 55-((A))-201 IRFLOT
j`119
0 200 400 BOUNDARY SURVEY I
—� OF THE PROPERTY OF
�P1,TH OF JAMES E. & ARDEYTH O. BUTCHER
D.B. 810, PG. 1279
1"=200' RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
0 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2004
RANDY A. STOAERS a gilbert w. Clifford & associates
N0. 002342 A DIVISION OF
PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
—J04 CONSULTING ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - PLANNING
,Ukir�• 117 E. PICCADILLY STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
(540) 667-2139 SHEET 2 OF 21
LOT 8 1 LOT 7i
o
IR 1_2F ^
IRS LOT
0
m
, H0
�
�T
m
--
loi
32
to
zi LOT =4
v
o -
°!LOT -
rn 34
N I LOT—
cD 35
LOT
36
Q4 I F Cu
f
10
0 pT o
o
i rn 4�-
116 2
8" LOCUST 535'18'07"W _ �O� �m
1166.60' - -
4"rIFE rENCE (h"EANDERS) ^o
z
ORf;ICK CEMETERY COP�IPANY, INC. IRS] 1108 f rn
Q.B. 337, PG. 179
} /
T,ia9• 55-((A))-201 IRFLOT
j`119
0 200 400 BOUNDARY SURVEY I
—� OF THE PROPERTY OF
�P1,TH OF JAMES E. & ARDEYTH O. BUTCHER
D.B. 810, PG. 1279
1"=200' RED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
0 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1" = 200' DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2004
RANDY A. STOAERS a gilbert w. Clifford & associates
N0. 002342 A DIVISION OF
PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
—J04 CONSULTING ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - PLANNING
,Ukir�• 117 E. PICCADILLY STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
(540) 667-2139 SHEET 2 OF 21
Mabre
�r1
1� •-c
g\
a
cs
This Deed is made and data this � day otjt•V:,,
1991, by CAROL N. SHOUP, tete sola, party of the first part,
Grantor herein, and JAMES B. BUTCHER and ARDEYTH d. BUTCHER, bin
wife. parties of the second part, Grantees herein.
NI"ESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sure of
Tan Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and
valuable onsiderati.on, the receipt of all of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey, with
general warranty of title, unto the Grantees, in tee simple, as
tenants by the entirety, with right of survivorship as if common
law, all of those two (2) certain tracts of land, together with the
rights, privileges. improvements and appurtenances thereunto
belongiaq, lOoated about three (1) Riles east of Winchester, in
Sbownae Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, lying a
U WWt war north of Sanreey Road and east of Greenwood Road,
described as follotsn
Tract I waw described by Deed of Reoord in the
ottioe or the Clerk of the Circuit court of
Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed book 129
et Pe" 140 *a ooataining twenty-nine (29)
acre, two (2) roods and eighteen (Is) poles
and described by Deed dated Match 6, 1919, of
record in the atoresaid Clerk's office in Deed
book 117 at Page 264 as adjoining the lands of
Ebersole. _Pater !Lannon, and James Ferguson.
Tract II is deaariDed by Deed dated July 26,
1902, of record in the aforesaid Clark's
oftios in Deed cook 122 at Page 517 as
beginnlpp at a point in a road leading from
the Berryville Turnpike to Sensany Road in the
lies of the lead of James Ferguson, thence in
F0r9u9on'4 hiss but seven hundred eighty-
seven and oas-halt (787 1/2) feet to Traet I
abw*, thence in line of Tract I above north
twelve (12) toot tc the line of the land of
Safe J• b*rsole, thence west in said
absraole*s line seven hundred elghty-g*~ and
one -halt (747 1 2) toot to said road, thence
In line with Nroad south twelve (12) feet
to the place of beginning (serving as a moans
on ingress and *gross from the aforesaid road
to Tract 1).
"a aforesaid tracts of land are the Boma land conveyer]
Oto the Grantor as LMt-AQ B, by Dead dated October 17, 1977, from
tdvard T. Shoup, Ntt_.111c, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's office
In deed book 481 at Page 650, and It is also the sam-a land that sae
the subject of the Contract of Sale froo the Grantc,r to the
Grantees, data Movembrr 21, 1977, and recorded in the oforenald
Clark's office in Dead book 521. Page )5]. Reference is made to
!all of the aforesaid records for a further and more particular
Idescription of the property hereby conveyed and a further
Iderivstion of tbo title thereof.
'his conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights
of way. and restrictions of record affecting the subject property
and apecificaur to that certain deed of truat fre, Edward T.
Shm , at, -x, to the Bank of Clarks County, 2t_AL, Trustees, dated
hugest 1, 1976. and recorded in the aforesaid Clark's office In
Dead book 442, Page IS1.
7t4s; conveyance is made in gross and not by the acre.
The Grantor covenants that she has the riot to convey
tam WUbjett real estate to the Grantaesa that the Grant*es shall
bare quiet and peaceable possession of the said property, tree from
all liens and encumbrancess and that she will grant such further
asnureneas of title as may be requisite.
MrTWZSS the following signature and seal.
I' SMS or VIMINNIA
CITY o! WIIMCQ ESM, tow l t i r
t, +��• -C&A- ,�-- , a Notary Public in
and for the Stats of virglaie at Large, due hereby oertify that
CAWL M. SNOW, whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed bearing
data qt's:t,, \,4Q_S_ has acknowledged the sass before
" in my state end City aforesaid.
2
Given under any hand dila day of _mfr xt�,,_, i ,�•,
N �--Y.Fl*Uu.ul�
tty COUNINRion ®xpireR:
~Nra
t
Ths �t tQ
S �y � �, r •�
.1 - 14 +►+a pn��l/�!
4++ItaOraCol.
S-5amd Gtr 56,U W{tf . i y 0
tftv
brcn
um .
3
0
10tbr,
12/sl3/93
1370 -RE
BKGI�►.'11i�1
TMS DEED OF TRUST is made and dated this yrtl clay .,f
December, 1991, by and between JAMES E. Du,rcia j4 and AP1)V7,1111 0.
BtriCNER, his wife, partien of the first port, heroinaftnr c::311vd
the Grantors, and E. EUGENE GUNTE;R, of Winchester, virgin)n, ,,arty
of the second part, hereinafter called the Trunto" .
WITNESSETH: That for and in conaideratlon of the "um or
ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), cash in hand paid by the maid Trustee to they
Grantors, on or before the delivery of this Dead of Trust, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby
grant and convey with general warranty of title unto the uaid
Trustee, in foo simple, together with all rights, privileges, and
improvements and appurtonaneos thereunto belonging, the following
described property:
All of those two certain tracts of land,
located about three miles East of Winchester,
In Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick
County, Virginia, lying a short way North of
Sen&eny Road and bast of the Greenway Road.
"TRACT I was described by a deed of record in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed book 129
at Pape 140 " containing 29 Acres, 2 roods
and 16 poles and described by dead dated March
6, 1915 of record in the aforesaid Clerk's
Office in Dead Book 137 at Page 364 as
adjoining the lands of Ei,mrsvlw, pwtar Harm,&
and Janes Ferguson.
TPACT II described by deed dated July 26, 1902
of record In the aforesaid Clerk's Office in
Deed Boole 122 at Page 517 as beginning at a
point in a road leading from the Berryville
TUrnpike to Senseny Road In the line of the
land of James Farquson, thence in Ferguson'&
line East 747% teat to (Tract I above), thence
In line of (Tract I above) Worth 12 teat to
the line of the land of Sara J. Ebersole,
thence West in said Ebersole'& line 787 test
to said road, thence In line said road South
12 loot to the place of beginning (serving as
a means of ingress and agrees from the
aforesaid road to Tract I).
F The foregoing two treats of land being the
6aae land conveyed to the Grantors herein by
Deed dated December 3, 1993, from Carol H.
Shoup, tai& solA, of record in the aforesaid
Clerk's office immediately preceding this Dead
of Trust. Reference is made to the said Deed
for the a more particular description of the
property herein conveyed.
This convQyanre is made nubjec;t to all "asejaerits;, rl.yht.f:
of way, and rentrictione or record affecting the subject property.
IN TRUST HOWEVER, to secure payment to the holdorr; of a
certain Dond of even date herewith, In the principal cum of 11wrinlY-
hrrvht THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00), together with Interest t•horeon
at the rate of ten percent (104) per annum. Intarent will Lai
payable monthly on the third (]rd) day of each month boginninq can
January 3, 1994, and the principal of this Dond, plug accrued
Interest, will be due and payable one (1) year from data on
December 1, 1994.
Renewals and extensions of the foregoing debt are
Permitted.
::lis Dead of 'frust is executed and is to be eonstru-rd in
Accordance with all the provisions of 655-59 and 699-60 of the Cade
of Virginia, and all amendments thereto, except as otherwise
provi4ed herein.
Advertisements requir*ds A single publication of notice
Of sale at least fourteen (14) days before the date of sale in any
newspapyr of general circulation of published where the property is
located. Commission of two and one-half percent (2%%) of
iadeetednesa due Trustee It property advertised but indebtedness
paid before sale.
Cantors shall have right of anticipation without
amity. ftemptions waived subject to all ups default. Insurance
required against the and other calamity in the amount of the
original secured hereby.
The holders of the indebtedness secured by this Deed of
Trust are hereby granted the power to appoint a substitute Trustee,
or Trustees, In accordance with the provisions of 626-49 of the
Code of Virginia in the event of the resignation, death,
incapacity, disability, removal or absence from the state of a
Trustee] such substitute Trustee, or Trustees, shall be designated
by Instrument duly exscuts4, acknowledged and recorded among the
2
laantl t'ec:certlp whore ;.he prolnrt
Y
pkweara nes it ori,innlly namcatl liner>tn.
Ths Property aacurastl Ly thin liuc;tl ryj rtar;t_ may
convoyFd to any other }:arson, firm or corpor:ae.l(.)n, wi tt,uuf- thy:
prior written cons,
nt of the benarlciarips and nny r..uch
6haa31 be conntruod in Fa clernult raf tho truest.
I4SIlZSR:___.tLtE d7 LT f lli3Ei1 11EIii1lX ii_ _;tQ_c:'b.LL_III
MAUl xA[CL_QI:._= PROPI kTY SFr
�._,.Ultl n__lf -RE taY
WITNESS tho following signaturan and uealm:
T J--..4
ES E. bwlfz t
ARVtYTIf o. BUTCHER - (SEAL)
STATE Of VIRGINIA,
City of Winchester. to -wit: 1
I•��i•---'---f�1S1 p �n.. 1► a Notary Public in and
for the State and City aforesaij, do hereby Certify that JAIiES E.
a� ARDBM 0' SUYCHCit , his wife, whose aaanes are signed to
the foregoing writing, datad Decaaber ), 1991, have parsonallyaPPea�
red before so and acknowledged the aaae in ry State and City
aforesaid.
Givon under ay hand this
rs.y of 3jQ4r,�_ 1993.
NOTARY PVSLIC
NY calmission expireat CXkf�,..
1'ikCAN1A: rRf OrRICK COUNTY. SCT.
llxa f(rartaag w11 <uluced
iu n�j�j e'- t!.0 � '?�17r p <
l`) _13,ia2, Atwlif C"l►fi'riq
Uf ,' �:rri'' Nft+r<l4 dlellbarjlf tivdi
,d
CLEM J
AMW s narUr
009000008 M w
wwrrwp� w eau+
6K0 { 0- I /6,,
THIS DKZD, made this 10th day of Docambor, 1997, batween
C. C. LONG6RDEM, INC., a Virginia Corporation, of the one
part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and CHR15 G. JENNING0 t/a
JMNIR%;S CONSTRUCTION, of the other part, hereinafter called
the Grantee.
UrMUSIL.THt That in consideration of Ton Dollars ($10.00)
and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does grant with general
warranty and, except as stated below, English covenants of
title, unto the Grantee, in foe simple, the following described
property, to -vitt
All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together
with the improvements thereon and the easements and other
appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate
in Shawnee Magisterial District, rredarick County,
Virginia, and designated as IAT 111, SECTION II, CARLISLE
NEIG3M SUBDIVISION, as shown on the plat and survey of H.
Bruce Mdsns, C.L.S., dated January 19, 1989, attached to
and bade part of the deed of dedication of said
subdivision, dated June 19, 1989, said deed of dedication
being of record in the Office of the Clerk of the circuit
Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 716, at
Fags 770, and the amended deed of dedication of said
subdivision, dated April 17, 19911 recorded in Dead Book
7S9, at Page 394; and being a portion of the ease property
conveyed to the Grantor heroin by deed of Charles C.
Langerbeas, at al, dated July 17, 1991, recorded in the
aforesaid Clark's Office in Deed Book 762, at Page 1582.
lmeterenoe is bare bade to the aforesaid plats, deed of
dedication, deed and the references contained therein for
• furthar and boreppaarticularly description of the
property c�er•d herein.
This ooeveyaaoe is Mde subject to all duly recorded and
aetoroaabls restrictions, reservations, easements and rights of
way.
wrnmu the following signature and seal:
Con"NX& M OF WMQIlIIA, AT LAWS,
City/em"Y of 1s(,,, he-��.. , to -wit:
IoKtifg , a Notary Public in and for the State
and I '44 oresa , certify that ��.�v • : , whose
tba oLJ Of C. C. I.a"orbeas, Inc, , s • gned to
rego r ng, dated Decsaber 10, 1992, has
ow
aakaledged the sane before as by and ,on behalf of said
corporation.
Given under By hand this 10th day of Decowber, 199j�°,
MYcomi.ssiorexpires jufu V. iqq'� 0 :• ; .
�+i ew M�Mrac/ N rw o� W • CI 74Ut •• i
motor ;Plid^%"�
.rs w «wry Weil,+� a'
#%04 IM M�Mf+r OI'' 614 6o i J
R� ew/ tib i1 here beew py , r aw►W,y _ .
44 - _
tory
VIII
TAr ICATT
}
Date: 7/01/04 •.r COUNTY OF FREDERICK Time: 15:12:41
HEATHER M TAYLOR'.1141Q1111TIM 000015919 Cust.Transactions:
Trans. Type: PAY Dept/Pill#: RE200400041620001 P/I Date: 7}01/2004 7/01}2004
Name: BRIARWOOD, LC Bill Date: 6/06}2004 Half: 1
Name 2:
Address: - Map#: 55 A 200
.205 N CAMERON ST MMMMMDDSSLLLLS
WINCHESTER, VA Acreage:,.29.99 Dist/Cis 09 / 01
Zip: 22601 - 4803 Mortg.Co.:
Desc: 29.99 ACRES SSN• 000 - 00 - 0000
000 - 00 -0000
Status:
Land: $128,200 Improve: $5,000 Use: $0
Original Bill: $486.18 Credits: $486.18 Discount: $.66
..Date.....yp... .
DrawerTrans#j Check Number ffirim■T ans..AmountBalance...........
5/27,2004 PAY AFW 4920 MARA 1004 $486.18CR $.00
COMMENT 1->
.Aba Value 0 COMMENT 2->
Paid.By BRIARWOOD, LC
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651.
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator"0f'
RE: Public Hearing: Section 165-48 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
regarding adding hours of operations for car washes in the B-2 (General Business)
District
DATE: September 15, 2004
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its May 27, 2004, meeting
recommended adding hours of operation for car washes located in the B-2 (General Business)
Zoning District, under Section 165-48 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. These hours of
operation would only apply to B-2 property that is adjacent to RA (Rural Areas) with residential
dwellings, RP (Residential Performance), R-4 (Residential Planned Community), R-5 (Residential
Recreational Community), MS (Medical Support with Residential Component), or MH -1 (Mobile
Home Community) zoned land. The DRRS felt that adding hours of operation would be consistent
with current Zoning Ordinance requirements for car washes located in the B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) Zoning District and would negate any nuisance factors. (See bold print below.)
This proposed ordinance amendment was presented as a discussion item to the Board of Supervisors
at its August 25, 2004, meeting. The Board of Supervisors recommended this proposed ordinance
amendment for public hearing. Staff will be available to respond to your questions.
Section 165-48. Car Washes
A. Car washes located in the B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District and B-2 (General Business)
Zoning District, adjacent to RA with residential dwellings, RP, R-4, R-5, MS(Medical Support
with Residential Component), and MH -1 zoned properties shall have an operator on site
during all hours of operation.
B. Car washes located in the B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District and B-2 (General Business)
Zoning District, adjacent to RA with residential dwellings, RP, R-4, R-5, MS(Medical Support
with Residential Component) and MH -1 zoned properties shall be operated only during the
following hours:
107 North Kent Street - Wint-hester, Virginia 22601-5000
Dai
Monday through Friday
Saturday
Sunday
MRC/bad
Hours•
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
§ 165-47 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-48 ep
opaque fences, opaque landscaping or opaque natural vegetation.
[Amended 6-9-19931
D. Trash storage. When stored outdoors, outside of a legal landfill or
trash heap, all trash, rubbish or garbage shall be stored in watertight,
verminproof containers.
(1) All multifamily residential developments, commercial
developments and industrial developments where more than one
(1) residence or use shares a parking lot shall be provided with
outdoor trash containers or other means of trash disposal. Means
shall be provided to ensure that all trash generated by the
development is properly disposed of to avoid litter, odor or other
nuisances.
(2) Such trash containers shall not be located in the front yard areas
of such uses. Such containers shall be located to avoid traffic
conflicts with parked vehicles and general traffic. Such containers
shall be properly screened or separated from dwellings to avoid
odors and other impacts.
E. [Added 12-9-19921 No junkyards shall be hereafter established any
portion of which. is within one thousand (1,000) feet of the nearest
edge of the right-of-way of any interstate or United States highway or
within five hundred (500) feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way
of any Commonwealth of Virginia highway, except as follows:
(1) Junkyards which are screened by natural objects, plantings,
fences or other appropriate means so as not to be visible from
the main traveled way of the highway or street or otherwise
removed from sight.
(2) Junkyards which are not visible from the main traveled way of
the highway.
§ 165-48. Car washes. [Added 4-10-1991]
A. Car washes located in the B1 Neighborhood Business Zoning District
shall have an operator on site during all hours of operation.
B. In the B1 Neighborhood Business Zoning District, car washes shall be
operated only during the following hours:
16570 10-25-93
§ 165-48
Days
Monday through Friday
Saturday
Sunday
ZONING
Hours
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m.
§ 165-48.1. Restaurants. [Added 12-9-19921
§ 165-48.2
Restaurants located in the Bi Neighborhood Business Zoning District shall
meet the following requirements:
A. Restaurants are not permitted to have drive-through window service.,
B. Restaurants are only permitted to be located within a shopping center
containing at least three other business units.
C. Restaurants are not permitted to exceed 35% of the total floor area
within a shopping center.
§ 165-48.2. Truck or fleet maintenance facilities and truck rental and
leasing facilities, without drivers. [Added 6-9-1993; amended
2-7-1995]
Where allowed, truck or fleet maintenance facilities and truck rental and
leasing facilities without drivers, shall meet the following requirements:
A. In the M-1 Light Industrial District, truck or fleet maintenance facilities
shall only be permitted in industrial parks.
B. Truck or fleet maintenance facilities may have fuel service, provided
that it is limited to one gasoline storage tank of 10,000 gallons or less
and one diesel storage tank of 10,000 gallons or less.
C. All repair and maintenance operations shall occur within a completely
enclosed structure.
D. Outdoor storage of parts associated with repair and maintenance shall
not be permitted.
E. Retail sale of fuel small not be permitted.
F. The Planning Commission may require additionalbuffers and
screening other than those defined in § 165-37 of this chapter.
16571 1-1-98
i
•
•
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator
RE: Public Hearing: Adding MS (Medical Support) District to Sections 165-47 C (1)
and 165-133 & 134
DATE: September 22, 2004
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its June 24, 2004, meeting
discussed adding "MS (Medical Support) District" to sections of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance. This change would include references to the MS (Medical Support) District Section 165-
47 C (1) and Sections 165-133 & 134 of the zoning ordinance; the proposed changes are in bold print
(see attachments). The existing zoning ordinance requirements regarding the MS District are not
included in these sections of the zoning ordinance as written. Staff supports the DRRS
recommendation of adding MS (Medical Support) District in the relevant sections of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance.
This proposed ordinance amendment was presented as a discussion item to the Planning Commission
at its July 21, 2004 meeting, and to the Board of Supervisors at its September 8, 2004 meeting, and
the amendment received support from both Boards. Staff will be available to respond to your
questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existi_ nz: Section 165-47 C (1) Inoperable motor vehicles shall not be stored outside of a total
enclosed building in the following zoning districts:
RP Residential Performance
R4 Residential Planned Community
R5 Residential Recreational Community
MH 1 Mobile Home Community
HE High Education
B 1 Business Neighborhood
B2 Business General
B3 Industrial Transition
M1 Industrial Light
M2 Industrial General
EM Extractive Manufacturing
107 ]`forth Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Proposed: Section 165-47 C (1) as amended:
Inoperable motor vehicles shall not be stored outside of a total enclosed building in the following
zoning districts:
RP Residential Performance
R4 Residential Planned Community
R5 Residential Recreational Community
MH I Mobile Home Community
HE High Education
MS Medical Support
BI Business Neighborhood
B2 Business General
B3 Industrial Transition
M1 Industrial Light
M2 Industrial General
EM Extractive Manufacturing
ARTICLE XVIII
Master Development Plan
Existin :Section 165-133 When Required:
A. A preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) and a final MDP shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning and Development for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approval
prior to any subdivision or development of property in any of the following zoning districts:
RP Residential Performance
R4 Residential Planned Community
R5 Residential Recreational Community
MHl Mobile Home Community
HE High Education
BI Business Neighborhood
B2 Business General
B3 Industrial Transition
MI Industrial Light
M2 Industrial General
EM Extractive Manufacturing
Proposed: Section 165-133 When Required:
A. A preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) and a final MDP shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning and Development for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approval
prior to any subdivision or development of property in any of the following zoning districts:
RP Residential Performance
R4 Residential Planned Community
R5 Residential Recreational Community
MH1 Mobile Home Community
HE High Education
MS Medical Support
B 1 Business Neighborhood
B2 Business General
B3
Industrial Transition
MI
Industrial Light
M2
Industrial General
EM
Extractive Manufacturing
Existing: Section 165-134 Waivers.
A. RP, R4, R5, and M111 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirements of a MDP in the Residential Performance District, Residential Planned Community,
Residential Recreational Community, and Mobile Home Community District, if the proposed
property for subdivision or development:
Proposed: Section 165-134 Waivers:
A. RP, R4, R5, MS and MH1 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirements of a MDP in the Residential Performance District, Residential Planned Community,
Residential Recreational Community, Medical Support, and Mobile Home Community District, if
the proposed property for subdivision or development:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Llepartment of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner
RE: Discussion Item — Request for Expansion of the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA)
DATE: September 20, 2004
In 2004 Frederick County initiated a new procedure for considering amendments to the
County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Requests for plan amendments were due to the
Planning Department by June 1, 2004. Eleven Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment
(CPPA) applications were submitted, and these were reviewed at a July 12, 2004 joint
work session of the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Comprehensive
Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS). Of these eleven requests, two, including the
SWSA expansion in the area of the Eastgate Commerce Center (CPPA application 404-
04), were considered by the Board of Supervisors to merit further study and formal action
through the public hearing process. Please note that with this application (CPPA #04-
04), the Board of Supervisors has directed staff to study only the request for the extension
of the SWSA on the south side of Tasker Road.
Included with this agenda item is a copy of the CPPA application, prepared by Charles E.
Maddox Jr., P.E. of Patton, Harris and Rust Associates, on behalf of the owners of the
subject properties.
Mr. Maddox is requesting the expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA)
to incorporate approximately 35 acres. The 35 acres include five parcels. A map
prepared by staff depicting the area of the SWSA expansion request, the existing SWSA
and Urban Development Area (UDA), and current zoning relative to the proposed
expansion area, is attached. An additional reap (SWSA Expansion Alternative),
depicting a more contiguous SWSA expansion map, is also attached.
The applicant has identified a different SWSA boundary than staff. Staff was not able to
find any record of the SWSA boundary having been expanded to include the Home Depot
Distribution Center and the entire Eastgate Commerce Center. Ultimately, adoption of
the SWSA request would clarify the SWSA location.
107 North Dent Street a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5C�`*
Request for SWSA Expansion
September 20, 2004
Page 2
A more logical extension of the SWSA would be to also include sites that are already
planned for industrial and business uses in the Eastern Frederick County Long Range
Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Pian. Many of these are already zoned M1
(Light Industrial District), B2 (Business General District) and B3 (Industrial Transition
District) and are adjacent to the SWSA (see map depicting SWSA Expansion
Alternative).
The applicant has indicated that he would be seeking a rezoning to business use for these
properties. Expansion of the SWSA would effectively plan the area for business and
industrial uses consistent with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan.
It would not be a commitment to provide sewer and water lines to suburban residential
uses. The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that new suburban residential development
served by sewer and water will be located in the UDA.
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met on September 13,
2004 to consider this request. Committee members were generally supportive of this
request and staff's proposal to include nearby commercial and industrial sites within the
SWSA. Several committee members expressed the opinion that sites north of the
Eastgate Commerce Park should also be developed for commercial and industrial uses.
Staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission regarding this request that
could be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors during their discussion of this request.
SKE/bad
SWSA EXPANSION REQUEST
EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER AREA
w Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting
0 Prepared: September 17, 2004
Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in the discussion of this
request. It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter.
Reviewed Action
CPPS: 09/13/04 Recommended for discussion
Planning Commission: 10/06/04 (Discussion) Pending
Board of Supervisors 10/12/04 (Discussion) Pending
PROPOSAL: To expand the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by approximately 35
acres.
PLANNED USE: Business
LOCATION: The properties are located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), east
of the Eastgate Commerce Center.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 87-A-31, 87-A-34, 87 -A -34A, 87 -A -34B, 87-A-35
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION:
Existing Conditions
The subject sites, as well as the properties adjoining to the east, north and south, are presently
zoned RA, and are in residential and agricultural uses. To the west is the Eastgate Commerce
Park. The Eastgate Commerce Park is Zoned Ml (Light Industrial District), B3 (Industrial
Transitional District) and B2 (Business General District). Industrial and business uses are
currently located in the Eastgate. Commerce Park.
Eastgate Commerce Center SWSA Expansion Request
September 17, 2004
Page 2
Comprehensive Policy Plan
Land Use Plan
The Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP) in general encourages new business in the vicinity
of limited access interchanges, existing business and industrial areas, and the airport
(CFP 6-11, 6-12 & 6-71). The subject properties are not included in any of the small
study area land use plans included in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The properties adjacent to the west (the Eastgate Commerce Park) are identified on the
Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan for industrial and business use.
The subject properties are within the general circle identifying the Armel rural
community center. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP) says to treat the Armel rural
community center similarly to the surrounding areas (CPP 6-45 & 6-75).
The subject parcels are within the Route 522/Route 277 "Triangle". The preparation of a
land use study of the triangle area is one of the priorities set for the Planning Department.
Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated that he would be seeking a rezoning to
business use for these properties. Expansion of the SWSA would effectively plan the
area for business and industrial uses. It would not be a commitment to provide sewer and
water lines to suburban residential uses. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6-5) states that
new suburban residential development served by sewer and water will be located in the
UDA.
Transportation
Neither the Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, nor the Winchester
Area Transportation Study (WATS) Plan identifies improvements to Front Royal Pike
(Route 522) in this area.
Entrances to the subject properties should not be located on Front Royal Pike (Route
522). Access to the subject sites should be from Maranto Manor Drive, which currently
accesses the Home Depot site.
Community Facilities and Service
The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) already serves much of this area.
The FCSA has indicated that they would be able to serve the subject parcels with public
water and sewer.
Eastgate Commerce Center SWSA Expansion Request
September 17, 2004
Page 3
Staff Comments: Mr. Maddox, in his application, identified a different SWSA boundary than
staff. Staff was not able to find any record of the SWSA boundary having been expanded to
include the Home Depot Distribution Center and the entire Eastgate Commerce Center.
However, staff is aware that some of this area is already served by sewer and water. Staff is
proposing a simpler extension of the SWSA boundary to include sites that are planned for
industrial and business uses in the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan: Property ID Numbers: 76-A-53, 76 -A -53E, 76 -A -53F, 76 -A -53G,
87-A-37, 87-A-36, 76 -A -48A. (the section Zoned M1) and 76-A-42 (most of this property is
already in the SWSA). Some of these sites are already zoned MI (Light Industrial District), B2
(Business General District) and B3 (Industrial Transition District) sites and all are adjacent to the
existing SWSA boundary (see map depicting SWSA Expansion Alternative). Inclusion of these
properties would resolve the uncertainty of the SWSA boundary in this area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) SUMMARY
& ACTION OF 09/13/04 MEETING:
The CPPS was generally supportive of the SWSA expansion request. The CPPS was also
supportive of staff's suggestion to include a number of adjacent properties, some of which are
already served by sewer and water, within the SWSA to provide a more logical SWSA boundary.
Staff would note that Roger Thomas and William Rosenberry were absent from the September
13 CPPS meeting at which time this request was considered.
COMPREHENSIVE
POLICY
PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION PACKAGE
TASKER WOODS
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PHONE: (540) 665-565 _FAX: (540) 665-6395
Website: www.co.frederick.va.us/PIanningAndDeve1ppment/PlanningAadDev htm
(REVISED 02/25/04)
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENTS
February 25, 2004
Dear Applicant:
Each year, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors reviews requests for amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and initiates those proposed amendments that they feel merit consideration.
Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment consideration in 2004 must be received in the Planning
Department no later than close of business on June 1, 2004. A copy of the application form is attached.
Please read the entire application, including the Attachment, and respond in full to those questions that
pertain to the particular map or text amendment you are requesting. Incomplete applications shall not be
considered. CPPA applications will not be accepted after this date.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department at (540) 665-5651
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIATION REQUEST FORM
(Please type all information. The application will not be deemed complete unless all items
listed below have been submitted.)
A. Owner or Authorized Agent Information:,
1. Name: PHR+A c/o Chuck Maddox
2. Project Name: Tasker Woods
3. Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
4. Telephone Number: 540-667-2139
B. Legal interest in the property affected or reason for the request:
I
The UDA a jacent to this site is built out and established uses surrounding this site
are primarily residential
C. Proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment – please provide the following
information.
1. For a map amendment:
Note: this application is for the Tasker Woods parcels only, however, the applicant
suggests the consideration of UDA changes include properties with boundaries to Route
522 as shown on attached exhibits.
a. GPIN(s): — 76-A-49, 76 -A -48A, 87-A-31, 34, 34A, 34B, 65, 36, 37
b. Parcel size (approximate acres): 133 acres
c. Plat of area proposed for CPPA amendment, including metes and bounds description.
d. Existing Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s): rural areas
e. Proposed Comprehensive Plan land use classification(s):
Urban Development & SWSA Area 165 acres, SWSA areas 45 acres -
f Existing zoning and land use of the subject parcel: See attached
g. What use/zoning will be requested it amendment is approved?
Mixed uses — single family detached, single family attached and commercial
h. Describe (using text, photos, and maps as necessary) the existing zoning,
Comprehensive Policy Plan designations, and/or approved uses and densities along
with other characteristics of are within:
• 1/4 mile from the parcel(s) perimeter if the parcel is less than 20 acres in size;
• %2 mile is 21 — 100 acres in size; or
• 1 mile if more than 100 acres in size.
i. The name, mailing address, and parcel number of all property owners within 200 ft. of
the subject parcel(s). see attached
2. For a text amendment:
Not applicable
a. Purpose and intent of amendment.
b. Cite Plan chapter, goal, policy and/or action text that is proposed to be amended.
c. Proposed new or revised text.
(Note: Please attach and specify text changes with additions underlined and
deletions crossed through.)
d. Demonstrate how the proposal furthers the goals, policies/objectives, and action
strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Policy Plan chapter(s) relative to the
amendment request and why proposed revisions to said goals, policies, and action
strategies are appropriate.
e. Demonstrate how the proposal is internally consistent with other Comprehensive
Policy Plan components that are not the subject of the amendment.
f. What level of service impacts, if any, are associated with the request?
3. For all amendments:
a. Justification of proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment (provide
attachments if necessary). Describe why the change to the Comprehensive policy Plan
if being proposed.
The UDA in adjacent portions southeast development area is fully developed. This is a
logical comprehensive plan expansion which increases housing stock in UDA and
provides needed expansion of business zoning for economic development in Frederick
b. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County relative to:
(See attached)
1. Community Design
Cultural Resources
Economic Development
Environment
5. Fire and Rescue
6.
Housing
7.
Land Use
8.
Libraries
9. Parks and open Space
10. Potable Water
11. Schools
12. Sewer
13. Telecommunications
14. Transportation
A. Other information as may be required by the Director of Planning, the Planning
Commission, or Board of County Supervisors during the review of the initiation request.
The applicant will be notified, in writing if additional information is required.
All applications must also contain the following items:
1. Special Power of Attorney Affidavit
2. Application Review Fee of $2,000 (payable to the Frederick County Treasurer)
Applicants should consult the Comprehensive policy Plan to identify goals, policies or action
strategies which are applicable to individual Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment requests,
Attachments
Tasker Woods
Property Owner Designation
(within % mile radius of property)
Tax ID #
Name
Address
Zonin2
Use
76 -.A -31A
Macedonia Cemetery Assoc.
1941 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Religious
76-A-32
Macedonia Cemetery Assoc.
1941 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Religious
76-.A-86
George E. Bagley
2000 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-A-85
Lane M. Reed
2456 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -.A -49D
Isabelle Kastak
2490 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76-A-84
Harry E & Phyliss J. Saville
2492 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49B
Minnie Mae Butler
2584 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49C
Roger L. & Joan F. Strosnider
2606 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -A -49A
David S. & Pamela B. Lehr
2678 Front Royal Pike,—Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76 -.A -51C
Clifton R. Strosnider
173 Armel Road, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Residential
76-A-48
Betty J. Tinsman
1804 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76 -A -47B
William & Loretta Heflin
113 Tadpole Lane, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-A-36
Richard & Catherine Palmer
1789 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-.A-35
Wayne E. Wilkins
1847 Macedonia Church Road, White post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-.A-34
Gary E. Whitacre
1861 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-5-55
Glen M. & Hattie P. Borrer
1873 Macedonia Church Road, White Post, VA 22663
RA
Residential
76-5-59
Elizabeth Properties, LC
P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residential
76-5-61
Elizabeth Properties, LC
P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residential
76-5-62
Elizabeth Properties, LC
P.O. Box 480, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residential
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Tasker Woods Addendum
Page 1 of 2
Addendum
3b. How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County relative to:
1. Community Design — The community design as shown on the attached exhibit is
an extension of existing urban development area which has "built out" to the north
and east of this site. Canter Estates is near complete and the residential portion of
the Tasker Woods project is adjacent to and connected with the Canter Estates
project. The project will offer improvement of the roadway systems, open space
and neighborhood recreational facilities. The sewer and water service area change
to the south is a logical extension to the business and industrial zoning district.
The new roadway constructed as a part of the Home Depot distribution project
has provided access to this property.
2. Cultural Resources — There are no known impacts on cultural resources as a result
of this project. The residential contingent next to business office and business
retail uses at Eastgate will provide for good neighborhood design with an
interconnectivity by pedestrian systems.
3. Economic Development — The 43.01 acres of proposed rezoning to business use
will provide economic development advantages to Frederick County.
4. Environment — The environmental impacts created by this project are primarily
along the stream channel which passes through the residential portion of the site.
This channel will be disturbed in very minor ways having to do principally with
utilities and pathways. There are no other significant environmental impacts
identified as a result of this project.
5. Fire and Rescue — There will be impacts on fire and rescue services and a proposed
mitigation of these impacts will be by proffer in accordance with the Frederick
County Impact Model.
6. Housing — This project expands the housing stock and inventory in Frederick
County within the urban development area which helps Implement the
comprehensive plan. The proximity of housing to business, churches and schools
provides excellent quality of life conditions for this expansion.
7. Land Use — The geologic and topographic conditions are ideal for the proposed
uses and do not result in the elimination of bona fide agricultural uses in exchange.
The business and residential mix provides a balance which is considered to be in
keeping with the comprehensive plan.
8. Libraries — A proffer will be extended to help fund libraries in accordance with the
Frederick County Impact Model.
9. Parks and Open Space — Open space will be provided within the development as
well as active recreational uses i.e. soccer fields. In addition, proffers will be
extended to help fund County parks and recreation development.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Tasker Woods Addendum
Page 2of2
10. Potable Water — Potable water lines owned and operated by the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority extend through the site at this time. Site pressures and water
availability are considered adequate for the proposed uses.
11. Schools — The location of this site is proximate to schools provided by the
Frederick County School Board. Armel Elementary and the new middle school are
to the north on Route 522 and Sherando High School is located with easy access
from Tasker and Warrior Drives. Additionally a school proffer will be extended as
a part of the rezoning in accordance with the County's fiscal impact model.
12. Sewer — Sewer services exists in the Eastgate Industrial Park (a new sewage lift
station will be provided which will service all the residential contingent for this
project). Individual B-3 uses will have sewer pumps that will pump to the existing
Eastgate sewer collection system. Sewer access is considered acceptable and
manageable for the proposed UDA and SWSA extensions.
13. Telecommunications — Telecommunication systems are available in the Eastgate
Industrial Park and in Canter Estates adjacent to the site. There are no known
adverse impacts as a result of this project on telecommunications.
14. Transportation — The proposed expanded UDA and SWSA areas have excellent
road transportation capacity with principle access to an improved Macedonia
Church Road, U.S. Route 522 and Tasker Road. The proposed business uses will
have very satisfactory access to U.S. Route 522 by the new roadway constructed as
a result of the Home Depot warehouse construction. Transportation systems
created by these expanded uses will be acceptable and manageable for Frederick
County.
76
^gur
rm el
27
M f
f -XISTING ZONING PLAN
Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc
FREDERICK COUNlY WGINIA
117 F- Picaffl� SL Vincheste, Wginia 22601
VaCE (540) 667-2139 F& (5M) 665-0493
^gur
..o= cu u -r UO; Jbp
C.w. Clifford & assoc. 540-665-0493 p.2
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
(TO BE COMPLETED BY AI MICAl`I'I)
SUBJECF PROPERTY OWNERS AFFMAVFf
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.rredcridcvn.ns
Ibis 20th day of May P_ygni�_.
(Day) (Month) (Year)
I, Allaa Hudson, Managing Member, RealTech, LLC
(Owns/Contract Purchaser/Authoriwd Agent)
hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application,
is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Comaussioncr of
the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records.
(f)vvn rrtraet Purchasca/Authorized Agent)
(circle one)
Subscribed and -,wom to before me this IxNay of Z�� ; . cq 1 in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal-,
37
-&PfANIK-PIbLIC
My Commission expires:
vo aoP s.w. cliff-ord 6 assoc. 540-655-6493 r-,2
ii�rc�rsrl�
w
r
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDMCK
This 20th
(Day)
(TO BE COMPLETED BY ArPLICA"
SUBJECT PROPERTY O PVNERS AF>F MAVIT
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www_co.tredcrick_v=.ns
day of May ?nQ4
(Month) (Year)
L Allan Hudson, Managing Member, Allden, LLC
(Owner/Contract Purchaser/Authorized Agent)
hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application,
is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Commissioner of
the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records.
(Owneoav= Purahascl/Authorized Agent)
(circle one)
COMMONWEALTH OF 1• 1
444 of I/ %/I/. /
Subsanbed and .qworn to before me this day of — in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal ✓
/ Z,,NOYARY PUBLIC—'
My Commission expires: ��
6
ray cu ug ua: abp
g.w. ctiffora & assoc. 540-665-0493 p.2
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDMCK
(TU BE COMPLETED BY APriAcAm)
SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS AFk IDAVIT
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frrderickva.ns
This d 0' day of _ IYl%j ZW 4
(Day) (Month) I (Year)
L
L6VL6:5 Q� Ly
Purchaser/.
l C"
hereby make oath that the list of property owners of the subject site, as submitted with the application,
is a true and accurate list based on the information provided by the Frederick County Co="sioncr of
the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records.
a4kct
Pur er/Androrizcd Agcnt)
(circle one)
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA_
of2fiW4c'
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Caj day of in my
County and State aforesaid, by the aforenamed Principal.
PUB IC
My Commission expires: %
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
I, STWEN G. RITTER and 1, MARY M. RITTER, residing at 3022 Front Royal Pike,
Winchester, Virginia 22602, have made and constituted ALLAN B. HUDSON, of the County of
Fairfax, Virginia, my true and lawful attorney-in-fact (hereinafter referred to as "my attorney'),
who is hereby authorized for me and in my name to do the following specific acts:
To act for and in my behalf with respect to all applications relating to the property
herein described, including Rezoning, Proffers, Conditional Use Permits, Master Development
Plans (Preliminary and Final), Subdivisions, and Site Plans for the real property containing 4.7±
acres, known as Tax Map parcel 87-A-34, County of Frederick, Virginia, to -wit:
All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 4.7 acres, more or less, lying
in the Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land
that was conveyed to Steven G. Ritter and Mary M. Ritter by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book
501 at Page 255.
To execute, acknowledge, and deliver any contract, or any other document, that
may, in the opinion of my attorney, be necessary or desirable in connection with the above;
3. To perform any other acts or execute any other documents that are necessary or,
in the opinion of my attorney, ought to be done in connection with the above;
4. This Special Power of Attorney is limited to the property described in Paragraph
1, and does not give my attorney authority to act on my behalf for any purpose not related to the
above described property.
5. I hereby confirm all lawful actions that may be taken by my attorney pursuant to
this Special Power of Attorney. An affidavit executed by my attorney, setting forth that at the
time of doing any act pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney, he did not have actual
knowledge or had not received notice of the revocation or termination of this Special Power of
Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or had not received notice of any facts indicating
same, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of the non -revocation or non -
termination of this Special Power of Attorney at such time. I further declare that, as against me
or persons claiming under me, everything that my attorney shall do pursuant to this Special
Power of Attorney shall be valid and binding in favor of any person or entity claiming the benefit
hereof who has not received written notice that this Special Power of Attorney has been revoked.
This Special Power of Attorney shall terminate one year from the date below, but may,
upon my written consent, be extended for an additional year for purposes of development.
This instrument is executed in more than one counterpart, any one of which shall, for all
purposes, be deemed an original.
WITNESS my signature and seal this l�' day of 12004.
_.A�
-4,
A/Z�
Stuveft G. Ritter
STEv,- S /�
Mary M. I�tter
STATE OF( i f�iyu_a
CITY/COUNTY �o1lp ri('!L, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by T. Ritter this
day of A° n 1 , 2004.
aK � IUI
Notdry Public O�5ps1 M:
OjJ•l�ONW,,�tn��
'C
My commission expires
l = OF y __
STATE OF Kk°--
CITY/COUNTY to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me by Mary M. Ritter this
day of Aa r 1 , 2004.
My commission expires �l' o
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
I, JULIA LESKO BISHOP, residing at 114 Orchard Drive, Midwest City, Oklahoma,
73110, have made and constituted ALLAN B. HUDSON, of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, my
true and lawful attorney-in-fact (hereinafter referred to as "my attorney"),. who is hereby
authorized for me and in my name to do the following specific acts:
To act for and in my behalf with respect to all applications relating to the property
herein described, including Rezoning, Proffers, Conditional Use Permits, Master Development
Plans (Preliminary and Final), Subdivisions, and Site Plans for the real property known as Tax
Map parcels 87-A-31 and 87-A-32, located in the County of Frederick, Virginia, to -wit:
(1) All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 14 acres, more or less,
lying and being situate about 8 miles South of Winchester, near Armel, in the
Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land that was
conveyed to John S. Coe, et ux, by William D. Spicer, et ux, by deed dated April
10, 1948, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia in Deed Book 204, at Page 584, said deed including by specific reference
a 10 -foot right of way leading to the Front Royal Pike (U.S. Route 522).
(2) All of that certain tract or parcel of land containing 9 acres, more or less,
lying and being situate along the Northwestern side of Wright's Run, near Anmel,
in the Opequon District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being the same land
that was conveyed to John S. Coe, et ux, by Stuart M. Perry, et al, by deed dated
January 15, 1949, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 208, at Page 304.
Said parcels being the same land conveyed by deed of John S. Coe, et ux, to
Michael Lesko and Helen R. Lesko, his wife, with common law right of
survivorship, dated June 3, 1957, and recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed
Book 247, at Page 76.
2. To execute, acknowledge, and deliver any contract, or any other document, that
may, in the opinion of my attorney, be necessary or desirable in connection with the above;
To perform any other acts or execute any other documents that are necessary or,
in the opinion of my attorney, ought to be done in connection with the above;
4. This Special Power of Attorney is limited to the property described in Paragraph
1, and does not give my attorney authority to act on my behalf for any purpose not related to the
above described property.
5. I hereby confirm all lawful actions that may be taken by my attorney pursuant to
this Special Power of Attorney. An affidavit executed by my attorney, setting forth that at the
time of doing any act pursuant to this Special Power of Attorney, he did not have actual
knowledge or had not received notice of the revocation or termination of this Special Power of
Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or had not received notice of any facts indicating
same, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of the non -revocation or non -
termination of this Special Power of Attorney at such time. I further declare that, as against me
or persons claiming under me, everything that my attorney shall do pursuant to this Special
Power of Attorney shall be validandbinding in favor of any person or entity claiming the benefit
hereof who has not received written notice that this Special Power of Attorney has been revoked.
This Special Power of Attorney shall terminate one year from the date below, but may,
upon my written consent, be extended for an additional year for purposes of development.
This instrument is executed in more than one counterpart, any one of which shall, for all
purposes, be deemed an original.
WITNESS my signature and seal this day o (_ , 2004.
2
STATE OF Qk/(Zlto/,)7C�
CITY/COUNTY OF. Otjr
_ /I, r mc,,,- to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was swom to and subscribed before me by JULIA LESKO
BISHOP this /8:�aay of Jar 12004.
No_ubliqj/
My commission expires
IN
:�
i
•
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator �liv
Subject: Discussion: Discussion of Section 165-50 to include local government services office
use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
Date: September 24, 2004
The Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its meeting
on September 23, 2004, discussed adding local government services office use as a permitted use in
the RA Zoning District. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance currently allows schools, post
offices, fire and rescue stations, and public utilities. Local government services offices would be
owned, leased or operated by Frederick County for services to the public in general. Staff has
included a definition of this proposed use and current permitted RA uses. Staff would recommend
adding the definition of local government services office to the Ordinance, and including local
government services office use with Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a discussion item to enable the PIanning
Commission to raise issues and seek clarification. Staff will be available to respond to your
questions. Comments raised during this discussion will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for
their consideration.
Proposed Definition:
Local Government Services Office — Offices and accessory facilities owned, leased, or operated by
local government agencies for services to the public in general.
Proposed Amendment, Section 165-50 BB:
BB. Local government services office.
107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Discussion of Section 165-50 to include local government services office use in the RA
September 24, 2004
Page 2
Existing:
§165-50 Permitted uses.
Structures and land shall be used for one of the following uses:
A. Agriculture, farming, dairies and forestry.
B. Orchards, horticulture and the production of nursery stock and products.
C. Single-family dwellings.
D. Mobile homes.
E. Schools (without residential component)
F. Public parks and playgrounds.
G. Churches.
H. Home occupations.
I. Natural conservation areas.
J. Winchester Airport.
K. Group homes.
L. Fire stations, companies and rescue squads.
M. Frederick County sanitary landfill.
N. Commercial and institutional cemeteries with or without funeral homes or cemetery
office complexes.
O. Post office.
P. Radio and television towers and their accessory buildings
Q. Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer substations, transmission
lines and towers, pipes, meters and other facilities, railroad facilities and sewer and water
facilities and lines owned by public utilities, railroad companies or public agencies.
R. Required off-street parking
S. Oil and natural gas exploration, provided that the following requirements are met:
(1) All requirements of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and all applicable federal,
state and local regulations shall be met.
(2) A site plan shall be reviewed and approved meeting all requirements of the
Frederick County Code.
(3) Approval of the site plan and use shall be for ninety (90) days, with subsequent
renewals being approved by the Planning Commission.
(4) In order to begin extraction of the resource, a rezoning to the EM (Extractive
Manufacturing) Zoning District will be required.
T. Museums, parks or historic sites used for educational or historic preservation purposes.
U. Business signs.
V. Directional signs.
W. Cottage occupation signs.
X. Accessory uses.
Y. Poultry farms and hatcheries and egg production.
Z. Fish hatcheries and fish production.
AA. Hog farming. It shall be unlawful for any person to have or maintain or to permit to be
erected, in the county, any hog pen that is located closer than two hundred (200) feet to a
residence or an adjoining property that is used for human habitation.
§ 165-49'"
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-50 4 "
ARTICLE V
RA Rural Areas District
§ 165-49. Purpose and intent. [Amended 12-11-1991]
A. The purpose of the rural area regulations is to preserve large, open
parcels of land, tree cover, scenic views, sensitive environmental
areas and prime agricultural and locally significant soils. The
regulations provide for a variation in lot size, at a density not to exceed
one unit per five acres. The varying lot size is permitted in order to
facilitate designs that blend in with the existing landscape and
preserve some larger tracts of undeveloped land in order to maintain
the rural character of the county, as well as provide a choice to home
buyers.
B. The regulations are intended to reduce environmental impacts, such
as soil erosion, by requiring development which is sensitive to the
existing features of the natural terrain and by reducing the amount of
clearing needed for roads. Diversity and originality in lot layout -are
encouraged in order to achieve the best possible relationship between
the development and the land. Individual lots and streets should be
designed to minimize alteration of the natural site features, relate
positively to surrounding properties and protect the views from
surrounding areas. It is intended that by allowing flexibility in the
subdivision design, while at the same time requiring that
environmental concerns be addressed, a more attractive,
environmentally sound and economically viable development will
result.
§ 165-50. Permitted uses.
Structures and land shall be used for one of the following uses:
A. Agriculture, farming, dairies and forestry.
B. Orchards, horticulture - and the production of nursery stock and
products.
C. Single-family dwellings.
D. Mobile homes.
E. Schools (without residential component). [Amended 10-27-19991
16572.6 5-20-2000
§ 165-50 ZONING § 165-50
F. Public parks and playgrounds.
G. Churches.
H. Horne occupations.
1. Natural conservation areas.
J. Winchester Airport.
K. Group homes.
L. Fire stations, companies and rescue squads.
M. Frederick County sanitary landfill.
N. Commercial and institutional cemeteries with or without funeral
homes or cemetery office complexes.
0. Post offices.
P. Radio and television towers and their accessory buildings.
Q. Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer
substations, transmission lines and towers, pipes, meters and other
facilities, railroad facilities and sewer and water facilities and lines
`- owned by public utilities, railroad companies or public agencies.
R. Required off-street parking.
S. Oil and natural gas exploration, provided that the following
requirements are met:
(1) All requirements of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and all
applicable federal, state and local regulations shall be met.
(2) A site plan shall be reviewed and approved meeting all
requirements of the Frederick County Code.
(Cont'd on page 16573)
16572.7 5-2D-2000
§ 165-50 ZONING § 165-51
(3) Approval of the site plan and use shall be for ninety (90) days,
with subsequent renewals being approved by the Planning
Commission.
(4) In order to begin extraction of the resource, a rezoning to the EM
Extractive Manufacturing Zoning District will be required.
T. Museums, parks or historic sites used for educational or historic
preservation purposes.
U. Business signs.
V. Directional signs.
W. Cottage occupation signs.
X. Accessory uses.
Y. Poultry farms and hatcheries and egg production. [Added 4-26-19951
Z. Fish hatcheries and fish production. [Added 4-26-19951
AA. Hog farming. It shall be unlawful for any person to have or maintain or
to permit to be erected, in the county, any hog pen that is located
closer than two hundred (200) feet to a residence or an adjoining
property that is used for human habitation. [Added 4-26-19951
§ 165-51. Conditional uses.
The following uses of structures and land shall be allowed only if a
conditional use permit has been granted for the use:
A. (Reserved)'
B. (Reserved)2
C. (Reserved)3
D. Fruit packing plants.
E. Manufacture or sale of feed and other farm supplies and equipment.
1 Editor's Note: Former Subsection A, Poultry farms and hatcheries and egg production, was repealed 4-26-1995. See
now § 165-50Y.
2 Editors Note: Former Subsection B, Fish hatcheries and fish production, was repealed 4-26-1995. See now
§ 165-50Z.
3 Editor's Note: Former Subsection C, Hog farming, as amended 12-9-1992, was repealed 4-26-1995. See now
§ 165-50AA.
16573 6-25-95
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORAND UM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator. f"L/
Subject: Discussion: Discussion of Section 165-63C regarding open space requirements in the
RP (Residential Performance) District
Date: September 24, 2004
The Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at its meeting
on September 23, 2004, discussed revisions to the Open Space requirements within the RP
(Residential Performance) District. The forwarded amendment would provide an opportunity for the
property owner/land design team to reduce the required open space by 50 percent if significant
recreational amenities are provided for the development project.
Staff had been approached by Greeenway Engineering to consider clarifications or reductions in the
required open space in larger residential mixed-use projects. After discussions with Greeenway to
better understand their concern, an ordinance proposal was drafted that achieved their goals while
providing additional recreational amenities to the future residents of the project.
Attached is the proposed ordinance amendment, existing ordinance language, and scenarios of
application of the proposed ordinance amendment.
This proposed ordinance amendment is presented as a discussion item to enable the Planning
Commission to raise issues and seek clarification. Staff will be available to respond to your
questions. Comments raised during this discussion will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for
their consideration.
Attachments
107 North Kent Street e Windiester, Virginia 22601-5000
OPEN SPACE TEXT AMENDMENT
-Proposal -
165 -63 Open Space Requirements
165-63D
The minimum required open space percentages provided in Section 165-63A of this
Chapter may be reduced up to 50 percent for residential developments which provide for
active recreational areas and amenities. Active recreational areas and amenities shall be
incorporated within common open space that is accessible to the residents of the
development for use and maintenance. The active recreational area and amenity value
shall be equivalent to the value of three recreational units for each 30 dwelling units. The
active recreational area and amenity value and design shall be approved by the
Administrator in conjunction with the Director of Parks and Recreation. These open
space active recreational areas and amenities shall be in addition to the recreational
facilities identified in Section 165-64.
144-2 & 165-156 Definitions
COMMON OPEN SPACE - Land that is used for recreational purposes, environmental
resource protection, buffer areas, stormwater management areas and passive areas that is
accessible to the residents of a development for use and maintenance, and is protected to
ensure that it remains in such uses, unless utilized under the provisions of Section 165-
63A of this Chapter.
Application of Proposed Open Space Amendment
A property owner has the ability to determine if he/she desires to development the subject
property with the required minimum amount of open space or under the provisions of the
proposed text amendment. The following scenarios describe how the current
requirements and proposed text amendment would be applied if this option was selected
by the property owner.
Scenario 1 100 Acre Site — All Sin le Family Dwellin s —12,000 scl.ft. Lots
Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 85 acres (which includes
roads) and place 15 acres in common open space (which includes environmental areas,
buffer areas and stormwater management areas). Generally speaking, the property would
yield 2.3 units per acre (or 195 residential lots) unless there were topographic constraints
that further reduced density yield. There would not be an active recreational areas and
amenities requirement.
Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 15 acres of common open
space to 10 acres or 7 1/2 acres. This acreage could then be developed into residential
lots (which includes roads), which provides for additional density yield and requires the
property owner to provide for active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the
property owner reduced the open space to 7 1/2 acres, the property owner could develop
93 acres (which includes roads). Assuming the same 2.3 unit -per -acre yield, the property
would yield 213 residential lots. This would then require the following value to be
provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
• 213 lots/30 = 7.1
0 7.1 x 3 = 21.3 recreational units
• 21.3 x $20,000.00 (one recreational unit value) _ $426,000.00
• Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $426,000.00
In this scenario, the property owner would yield 18 additional residential lots and would
need to provide for a $426, 000.00 value of Active Recreational Area and Amenity within
all of, or a portion of the 7 1/2 acres of common open space.
Application of Proposed Open Space Amendment (Continued)
Scenario 2 200 Acre Site — Mixed Residential Use
Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 140 acres (which includes
roads and parking lot areas) and place 60 acres in common open space (which includes
environmental areas, buffer areas, recreational areas and stormwater management areas).
A reasonable mixed residential mixed yield could incorporate the following residential
mix:
60 acres Single Family Dwellings = 138 units
20 acres Townhomes = 110 units
20 acres Duplex = 88 units
30 acres Apartments = 220 units
Total Units = 424
This proposal would require the property owner to provide 1 recreational unit for every
30 dwelling units that are on lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or less (existing Section 165-
64 Recreation Facilities) ; therefore, this would include the townhome, duplex and
apartment units (418 total units). This would then require the following value to be
provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
• 418 lots/30 = 13.9 recreational units
• 13.9 recreational units x $20,000 (one recreational unit value) _ $278,000.00
o Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $278,000.00
Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 60 acres of common open
and develop this acreage into residential lots (which includes roads and parking lot areas),
which provides for additional density yield and requires the property owner to provide for
a greater value of active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming that the property
owner reduced the open space to 30 acres, the property owner could develop 170 acres
(which includes roads and parking lot areas). This additional acreage could then be
incorporated into the residential land bays identified above to create the following
residential mix:
70 acres Single Family Dwellings = 161 units
35 acres Tow-nhomes = 192 units
25 acres Duplex = 110 units
3 0 acres Apartments = 220 units
Total Units = 683
This proposal would require the property owner to provide the value of 3 recreational
units for every 30 dwelling for the entire project regardless of lot size. This would then
require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
• 683 lots/30 = 22.7
• 22.7 x 3 = 68.1 recreational units
• 68.1 recreational units x $20,000 (one recreational unit value) = $1,362,000.00
• Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $1,362,000.00
In addition, the development would continue to be required to provide the Recreation
Facilities per existing Section 165-64.
Townhomes = 192 units
Duplex = 110 units
Apartments = 220 units
Total Units = 522 522 lots less than 5,000 square feet
• 522 lots/3 0 = 17.4 recreational units
• 17.4 recreational units x $20,000 (one recreational unit value) = $348,000.00
• Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $348,000.00
In this scenario, the property owner would yield 259 additional mixed residential units
and would need to provide for a $1,710,000.00 value of Active Recreational Area and
Amenity within all of, or a portion of the 30 acres of common open space. This increases
the cost of the recreational amenities by $1,362,000.00 over the current requirement.
Scenario 3 50 Acre Site — Mixed Residential Use
Current Requirement: The property owner could develop 35 acres (which includes roads
and parking lot areas) and place 15 acres in common open space (which includes
environmental areas, buffer areas, recreational areas and stormwater management areas).
A reasonable mixed residential mixed yield could incorporate the following residential
mix:
25 acres Single Family Dwellings = 58 units
10 acres Townhomes = 55 units
Total Units = 113
This proposal would require the property owner to provide 1 recreational unit for every
30 dwelling units that are on lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or less (existing Section 165-
64 Recreation Facilities); therefore, this would include the townhouses. This would then
require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
• 55 lots/30 = 1.8 recreational units
• 1.8 recreational units x $20,000 (one recreational unit value) = $36,000.00
• Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $36,000.00
Proposed Requirement: The property owner could reduce the 15 acres of common open
by 50 percent and develop this acreage into residential lots (which includes roads and
parking lot areas), which provides for additional density yield and requires the property
owner to provide for a greater value of active recreational areas and amenities. Assuming
that the property owner reduced the open space to 7 1/2 acres, the property owner could
develop 42 '/2 acres (which includes roads and parking lot areas). This additional acreage
could then be incorporated into the residential land bays identified above to create the
following residential mix:
30 acres Single Family Dwellings = 69 units
12 '/z acres Townhomes = 68 units
Total Units = 137
This proposal would require the property owner to provide the value of 3 recreational
units for every 30 dwelling for the entire project regardless of lot size. This would then
require the following value to be provided for active recreational areas and amenities:
• 137 lots/30 = 4.6
• 4.6 x 3 = 13.8 recreational units
• 13.8 recreational units x $20,000 (one recreational unit value) = $276,000.00
• Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $276,000.00
In addition, the development would continue to be required to provide the Recreation
Facilities per existing Section 165-64.
Townhomes = 68 units
Total Units = 68 68 lots less than 5,000 square feet
• 68 lots/30 = 2.3 recreational units
• 2.3 recreational units x $20,000 (one recreational unit value) = $46,000.00
• Total Active Recreational Area and Amenity Value = $46,000.00
In this scenario, the property owner would yield 24 additional mixed residential units and
would need to provide for a $322,000.00 value of Active Recreational Area and Amenity
within all of, or a portion of the 7 %2 acres of common open space. This increases the cost
of the recreational amenities by $276,000.00 over the current requirement, yet provides
the developer 24 additional lots.
§ 165-62 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-63
§ 165-62. Gross density. [Amended 5-11-19941
A gross density shall be established for each proposed development,
including all land contained within a single master development plan, according
to the characteristics of the land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and
the nature of surrounding uses. Because of these characteristics, some
developments may not be allowed to employ the maximum density allowed by
these regulations. The following density requirements shall apply to all parcels
as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section:
A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on
parcels of land.
B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an
approved master development plan exceed ten (10) dwellings per
acre.
C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an
approved master development plan which contains more than ten (10)
acres and less than one -hundred (100) acres exceed five and five -
tenths (5.5) dwellings per acre.
D. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an
approved master development plan which contains more than one
hundred (1 DO) acres exceed four (4) dwellings per acre.
§ 165-62.1. Multifamily housing. [Added 5-11-19941
A. Developments that are less than twenty-five (25) acres in size may
include more than fifty percent (50%) multifamily housing types.
B. Developments that are more than twenty-five (25) acres and less than
fifty (50) acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to fifty percent
(50%) multifamily housing types.
C. Developments that are over fifty (50) acres in size shall be permitted ��
to contain up to forty percent (40%) multifamily housing types.
-----J,P- § 165-63. Open space requirements.
A. [Amended 6-8-19941 A minimum percentage of the gross area of any
proposed development shall be designated as common open space.
This open space shall be for purposes of environmental protection and
16582 4_1_97
§ 165-63 ZONING § 165-63
for the common use of residents of the development. Such open
space shall be dedicated to a property owners association or to
Frederick County. Open space shall be dedicated to Frederick County
only with the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The Planning
Commission may allow public libraries and public schools to be located
within areas designated as common open space, provided that the
proposed facilities are indicated on the original master development
plan for the residential development. During the review of the master
development plan, the Planning Commission shall ensure that the
location of a proposed public library or public school is appropriate and
that adequate buffers, screening and access are provided to prevent
negative impacts to adjoining residential uses. Public libraries and
public schools shall be dedicated to Frederick County. Developments
which contain any of the following housing types shall provide open
space as specified below:
Minimum Required
Type of Open Space
Development (percent)
Developments containing only 0
single-family detached
traditional or traditional
rural housing
(Cont'd on page 16583)
16582.1 4-1-97
§ 165-63 ZONING § 165-63
Type of
Development
Developments containing only
single-family detached urban
housing
Developments in which no less
than 60% of the dwellings are
single-family detached
traditional housing mixed with
any other housing types
Developments containing only
single-family detached cluster
or a mixture of single-family
detached cluster and urban
housing
Minimum Required
Open Space
(percent)
15%
15%
25%..
Single-family small lot housing 30%
[Added 10-27-19991
All other developments 30%
B. No more than 50% of the required open space shall be within the
following environmental areas: lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep
51-opes. The Administrator, upon recommendation by the Planning
Commission, may allow a larger amount of steep slopes to be utilized
where the developer can demonstrate a viable plan to make these
areas useful.
C. In developments containing only single-family detached urban housing
or single-family detached 'urban housing mixed with single-family
detached traditional housing, the required open space may be waived.
The open space requirement shall only be waived when the required
open space is less than one acre. Such waivers shall be granted by the
Administrator, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Such waiver shall not include open space provided to meet
environmental requirements.
16583 12-15-99
§ 165-64 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-64
§ 165-64. Recreation facilities.
A. Housing types with lot sizes of less than 5,000 square feet shall
provide the following recreational units or equivalent recreational
facilities, for each 30 dwelling units. All such developments shall
contain at least one such recreational unit. In addition, developments
containing single-family small lot housing shall provide a community
center that provides for the equivalent of three age-appropriate
recreational units for each 30 dwelling units. The facilities shall be in a
configuration and location that is easily accessible to the dwelling units
that they are designed to serve. The design and amount of facilities
shall be approved by the Planning Commission, in conjunction with the
Administrator and the Department of Parks and Recreation, using the
following recreational unit as a guideline. The design of such facilities
shall be approved at the time of site plan review. [Amended
10-27-19991
B. A recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30
dwelling units. The units may be broken into smaller units or added
together to meet the needs of the total development. An example
recreational unit shall be as follows:
(1) Tot -lot:
Quantity Equipment
1 Slide (8 feet high, 16 feet long)
1 set Swings (10 feet high, 4 seats)
1 Climber (13 feet, geodesic)
2 Spring animals
1 Sandbox
1 Whirl (10 feet in diameter)
(2) Or any equivalent recreational facilities including:
(a) Swimming pools.
(b) Tennis courts.
(c) Half basketball courts.
(d) Athletic fields.
(e) Picnic shelters.
16584 12-15-99 ` ('
§ 165-64 ZONING § 165-65
(f) Community center. [Added 10-27-19994] "
(g) Other recreational facilities.
§ 165-65. Dimensional requirements.
The following dimensional requirements shall be met by uses in the RP
Residential Performance District. The Administrator shall make the final
determination as to the classification of housing types. Unless otherwise
specified, all housing types shall be served by public sewer and water.
A. Single-family detached rural traditional A "single-family detached
rural traditional residence" shall be a single-family residence on an
individual lot with private yards on all four sides, without public sewer
and water.
(1) Minimum lot size shall be 100,000 square feet
(2) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Setback from the road right-of-way: 60 feet.
(b) Side yards: 15 feet.
(c) Rear yard: 50 feet without public sewer and water.
(3) Minimum lot width to maximum depth ratio shall be 1 to 3.
(4) Minimum off-street parking shall be two spaces per unit.
(5) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 35 feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: 20 feet.
B. Single-family detached traditional - A "single-family detached
traditional residence" shall be a large -lot single-family residence with
private yards on all four sides without required common open space:
(1) Minimum lot area shall be 15,000 square feet.
(2) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Setback from the road right-of-way: 35 feet.
(b) Side yards: 10 feet.
4 Editor's Note: This ordinance also provided for the relettering of former Subsection B(2)(f) and Subsection B(2)(g).
16585 12-15-99