PC 01-15-97 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
JANUARY 15,1997
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Minutes of November 6 and November 20, 1996 ............................ A
2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................... B
3) Committee Reports ................................................... C
4) Citizen Comments .................................................... D
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5) Conditional Use Permit #017-96 of Charles W. Rose, Jr. to operate an automobile
repair business without body repair. The property is located at 751 Frog Hollow Road
and is identified with Property Identification Number 22-A-1013 in the Gainesboro
Magisterial District.
(Mr. Miller)......................................................... E
6) Subdivision #011-96 of Bass Hoover Elementary School to subdivide a 33.796 -acre
tract into two lots. This property is located at the intersection of Aylor Road (Rt. 647)
and Caroline Avenue, and is identified with PIN 75-A-63 in the Opequon Magisterial
District.
(Mr. Miller)......................................................... F
2
7) ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) Enhancement project
funding proposals to establish an ISTEA Enhancement Program project for Frederick
County to assist with the acquisition of the Third Battle of Winchester site. This
acquisition will secure one of the key sites of the historic Opequon Battlefield, and will
initiate Phase II of the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network Plan for Frederick County and
the City of Winchester.
(Mr. Wyatt)......................................................... G
8) Rezoning Application #006-96 of H. Clay DeGrange Estate to rezone 51.0540 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). This property is located in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 50 West and Route 37. The parcel is
identified with PIN 53-A-68 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................................ H
DISCUSSION ITEMS
9) Discussion Regarding proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments for Adult Care
; acilities
(Mr. Wyatt)......................................................... I
10) Discussion on 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
(Mr. Lawrence) ...................................................... J
11) Discussion Regarding Standards for Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line Lots
(Mr. Wyatt) .......................... K
12) Other
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, Virginia on
November 6, 1996.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice-
Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; John H. Light,
Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Terry
Stone, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro
District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Vincent
DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator,
Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2, 1996
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Ours, the minutes of October
2, 1996 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Comrnission's information.
2
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Develoument Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 10/24/96 Mtg.
Mr. Wyatt reported that the two items discussed by the DRRS were a text amendment
for self-service storage facilities and assisted -living care facilities.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #013-96 of Hogue Creek Country Market by Painter -Lewis for an
addition to the existing market and a two-bedroom residence. The property, zoned RA (Rural
Areas), is located at 47800 Northwestern Pike and identified with PIN 40 -A -66D in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller stated that Conditional Use Permit #017-87, approved on October 14,
1987, originally authorized the Hogue Creek Country Market in its present configuration. He said
that the proposed expansion is for a drive-through food service to be added to the western end of the
existing country store. He added that a site plan would need to be submitted for the addition to the
store and significant issues associated with this request could be addressed at that time.
Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., the project architect, stated that the owner
desires to expand his present operations with the addition of a drive-in restaurant/ fast food facility.
Mr. Lewis said that the additions will be severely United by the available sewage treatment, however,
they have received tentative approval from the Health Department in Lexington. Mr. Lewis said that
they are also contemplating the possibility of constructing an accessory dwelling to the primary
dwelling to be used for a store manager.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came
forward to speak:
Mr. Bill Shevokas, adjoining property owner, was opposed to the expansion for the
following reasons: 1) traffic safety in the vicinity of the market; 2) parking of tractor trailer trucks
along the berm of Route 50, west of the market, which blocks visibility; and 3) noise pollution from
trucks leaving their engines running while they are in the store and/or pumping gas.
Mrs. Robin Menefee, adjoining property owner, said that the map in the application
depicts Lot 67 as vacant, however, this is the lot of her primary residence. She stated that all
surrounding lots are residential. Mrs. Menefee said that if the application is approved, she and her
husband would like to request that: 1) the drive-through be paved; and 2) a tree -line be established
between Mr. Owens' property and her property to serve as a visual buffer, a noise buffer, and a trash
barrier. Mrs. Menefee commented that Mr. Owens' store has been robbed once before and she has
concerns about that, since she lives next door. She added that this is quite a busy place and she
would prefer that the store not be expanded.
Mr. Douglas L. Owens, the owner/ applicant, said that he understands his neighbors'
concerns. Mr. Owens said that there is a deceleration lane along Route 50 and signs are posted
prohibiting trucks from parking along the highway. Mr. Owens felt that the property was well -
landscaped. He said that some trees were removed, but many trees remained behind the store and
at the rear property line. In response to a question about his hours of operation, Mr. Owens replied
that his hours are from 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday and 5:00 a.m. until
midnight Thursday through Saturday. He said that he did not anticipate longer hours with the
expansion.
Members of the Commission wanted to make sure that suitable buffers were located
on the property to protect the adjoining residents from the lights and noise associated with the market
and to prevent trash and paper from blowing onto the neighbors' properties. They instructed the
staff to consider this upon site plan submittal. They also felt that the drive -way for the drive-through
area should be paved. Other questions that arose concerned permitted sign size, hours of operation,
and extent of the fast food operation.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #013-96 of Hogue Creek Country Market by
Painter -Lewis to allow the expansion of the market with the following conditions:
A site plan must be submitted and approved for the proposed addition prior to any
construction activity.
2. Any future expansion of this facility or change in use will require a new conditional use
permit.
3. All review agency comments and requirements must be complied with at all times.
4. At the time of site plan submittal, a buffer shall be considered along the property line which
would reduce light pollution, sound pollution, and be able to catch blowing debris.
4
Conditional Use Permit #014-96 of Garris and Eva Poling to operate an antique shop. The
property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is located at 212 Whitacre Road and is identified with PIN
27 -A -72A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller said that the applicant is proposing construction of a 36'X 50' building on
the north side of the property to house the proposed use. Mr. Miller said that there is adequate space
for the building and setbacks can be met. He explained that since this is a public use facility, a site
plan will be required. He added that sign size limitations are appropriate, since this business will be
located in an area of mostly rural residential uses.
Commission.
Mr. Garris Poling, owner and applicant, was present to answer questions from the
There were no public comments.
There were no areas of concern raised by the Commission.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 4014-96 of Gams and Eva Poling to operate an
antique shop with the following conditions:
A site plan for the development of this activity shall be required. The site plan shall be
approved prior to any construction activity.
2. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
Any on -premise sign shall be limited to a maximum size of 25 square feet.
Conditional Use Permit #015-96 of Wade and Julie Marrow to operate an automobile repair
business without body repair. The property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is located at 624 Back
Mountain Road and is identified with PIN 39-2-A in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller said that Inspections Department had comments about the containment and
clean-up of waste oil and grease. Mr. Miller said that public garages are permitted in the RA Zoning
District with an approved conditional use permit, provided that all repair work takes place entirely
within an enclosed structure and all exterior storage of parts is fully screened from view from any
adjoining property. He explained that the applicant intends to conduct this activity in a three -bay
garage that exists toward the rear of his property. Mr. Miller said that during a site inspection of the
property, he observed several inoperative vehicles that were being stored on the property.
Mr. Miller read a letter of opposition that he received from an adjoining property
owner, Mr. Steven R. Michaelis. The letter indicated that Mr. Michaelis has been disturbed by
significant noise coming from the shop.
Mr. Marrow, the owner/applicant, said that the inoperative vehicles being stored on
his property have been removed. He said that he anticipates making this operation a full-time
business. Mr. Marrow pointed out that there is an ironworks business and a fix -it shop located on
both sides of his property, about '/2 mile away. He added that waste oil and grease is contained and
picked -up at his location.
Chairman DeHaven called for anyone wishing to speak and the following person came
forward to speak in opposition:
Mr. Kenneth Sibert, a property owner on the east side, felt that the proposed operation
would disturb the quiet, residential character of.the neighborhood. W. Sibert said that the property
inquestion lies on a watershed that drains to a wet weather stream that borders his property and
becomes a floodplain during periods of wet weather. Mr. Sibert raised concerns about a private
nursing home and a breeding kennel who use the right-of-ways on his property and neither have a
provision for sharing the maintenance of those right-of-ways. Mr. Sibert said that Back Mountain
Road is very dangerous during commuting hours and there is speeding. He was also concerned
about the disposal of hazardous wastes.
Commissioners had questions about noise containment, hours of operation, and the
number of vehicles waiting for repair that could be stored on the property. They felt that all these
concerns were adequately addressed by the applicant so that minimal disturbance would occur to the
neighborhood.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Morris,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #015-96 of Wade and Julie Marrow to operate an
automobile repair business without body repair with the following conditions:
No outside storage of parts or equipment shall be allowed.
2. No more than five vehicles waiting repair shall be allowed to be located externally to the
C,
garage.
3. No inoperative vehicles shall be allowed to be stored on the property at any time.
4. All repair work must be done inside the garage.
5. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
6. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a. m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and
no Sunday hours.
The Commission unanimously voted to make the letter from Steven R. Michaelis a part of the official
record.
Rezoning Application #006-96 of H. Clay DeGrange Estate to rezone 51.0540 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) . This property is located on the northwest quadrant
of the intersection of Route 50 West and Route 37 and is identified with P.I.N. 53-A-68 in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Tabled for 90 Days
Mr. Tierney presented the background information and staff report. Mr. Tierney
stated that the property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and a portion
of the property is within the Urban Development Area (UDA). He said that although the site appears
suited for business development, and is so indicated by the recently adopted Round Hill Land Use
Plan, the staff has a number of concerns, many of which center around a lack of information.
Mr. Tierney said that no specific uses are proffered. He said that the applicant's
impact statement is somewhat misleading and inconsistent because a low figure is used in the impact
model to project traffic generation and a different, higher figure is used to project positive fiscal
impacts. Mr. Tierney stated that the applicant has not provided a traffic analysis with information on
what kind of trips will be generated, where they will be going, what sort of improvements will be
required, the phasing of those improvements, and who will build them. He stated that Mr. Kelly
Downs at the Staunton Office of VDOT indicated that, at a minimum, the amount of traffic projected
would require an additional lane on Route 50 as well as double-laning the off -ramp at Route 50, off
of Route 3 7 heading south.
Regarding sewer service, Mr. Tierney said that the impact statement has indicated the
sewer will be provided by the Sanitation Authority, however, there is no formal agreement to that
effect. He said that the applicant does have a formal agreement with the City to provide water.
Mr. Tierney stated that the Round Hill Plan emphasized the need to protect the
appearance of this corridor and entrance to the City by way of signage, landscaping, setbacks, and
parking removed from the frontage of Route 50. He said that there is nothing within the application
package that addresses these items.
Mr. Tierney explained that these are the types of issues that have not been answered
and it is quite difficult to make accurate assumptions or draw conclusions about the impacts without
all of the information being provided.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the design engineers
for the project, said that the intent for the property is for major shopping and retail facilities, a
possible hotel, and possible convenience/commercial facilities. He presented a letter from the
Sanitation Authority, dated November 6, 1996, acknowledging the Authority's franchise rights to
serve this area and that they were committed to work with the landowners/developers for the
provision of water and sewer service. Mr. Maddox next discussed possible transportation
improvements and his intent to work with VDOT. Mr. Maddox said that the kind of information the
staff has asked for would not be forthcoming from VDOT without providing them with approved
construction drawings and he felt that the applicant needed the rezoning in order to authorize that
next level of expenditure effort.
Comrnission members raised the issue of whether the proposed business development
would be a first step forward in providing sewer to the Round Hill residents, which was referred to
in the Round Dill Plan. Mr. Tierney replied no, that there were still a number of potential road
blocks. He said that the capacity available in the line at McDonald's is about 200,000 gallons, which
may serve this site, but certainly not all of Round Hill; and the capacity of the line at Sunnyside is also
uncertain in light of the Opequon Plant expansion discussions. Mr. Thomas brought the
Commission's attention to the letter from the City's Public Utilities Director, Jesse Moffett, to the
City's Planning Director, Tim Youmans, which stated that the City has on-site water available and
a standing agreement with DeGrange regarding water supply. The letter also stated that wastewater
service could be provided through a pending agreement with the Hardee's/Mobil Convenience Center
development utilizing a proposed lift station. Mr. Thomas felt that based on this letter, there was no
way this project would benefit Round Hill.
Commission members also had questions about the applicant's intent for the remaining
51 acres of the property. They questioned the worth of an impact statement based on 51 acres, if the
intent was to develop the entire 102 acre site. They raised the fact that almost 50% of the proposed
land area was outside of the UDA and they were opposed to any future requests to move the UDA
line. Commission members felt that this rezoning would be an catalyst for future development of this
area and had the potential to change the character of the community. Commission members felt that
the proffers offered for fire and rescue were inadequate and the 10' buffer strip proposed along Route
50 was insufficient. They also had concerns that three separate concept plans were submitted, but
8
not one had been tied down for the rezoning. They had questions about what road improvements
would be necessary and who would be responsible to build them.
Commission members felt that the location of the property, at a major highway
intersection, was a good place for B2 zoning, but so many questions were still left unanswered. They
felt that at the time of rezoning, the applicant should be able to define major impacts such as traffic,
corridor protection, and proffers.
Mr. Ellington brought the Commission's attention to the 13 residents located along
Fox Drive, between Sheets and the City line, that do not have sewer and need it. Mr. Ellington
suggested that while the sewer line is being run south, that the two blocks on Fox Drive be picked
up for the residents who need sewer service. Mr. Sager was in agreement.
Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Application
#006-96 of H. Clay DeGrange Estate Rezoning for 90 days to allow the applicant sufficient time to
provide definitive information on traffic impacts, suggested road improvements, phasing, the
responsible party for completion of road improvements, and definitive information on corridor
protection and proffers.
The vote on this tabling was as follows:
YES (To Table for 90 Days): Stone, Light, Copenhaver, Marker, Thomas, Morris, Ours
NO: Ellington, DeHaven
Waiver Request by Adams Family Limited Partnership for the disturbance of environmental
features as prescribed by Section 165-31B(6) and 165-31B(7) of the Zoning Ordinance for
Master Development Plan #009-87 of Airport Business Center (formerly Upper Valley Business
Park). This property is located at the intersection of Airport Road (Route. 645) and Front
Royal Pike (Route 522) and is identified with PIN 64 -A -45D in the Shawnee Magisterial
District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. John Lewis, representing the owner, Adams Family Limited Partnership, stated
that the applicant is requesting that 50% of the land within steep slopes and 56% of the land within
woodlands be allowed to be disturbed to accommodate the complete build -out of the Airport
Business Center. Mr. Lewis said that the market seems to indicate that MI (Light Industrial) users
are prevalent in Frederick County now and these users tend to have larger facilities requiring large,
flat contiguous areas of land. Mr. Lewis said that the applicant is attempting to plan ahead to
guarantee that these users can be accommodated on his property. Mr. Lewis showed slides of the
proposed property and pointed out a delineated area proposed as a dedicated environmental corridor
to preserve the remaining acreage within steep slopes and woodlands.
Concerns of the Commission centered around the possibility of sedimentation
occurring in Buffalo Lick Run, if slopes were disturbed, and who would bear the responsibility of
maintaining the slopes after build -out. Commission members asked if the woodland area could be
relocated to another contiguous area on the property.
Mr. Lewis replied that control of sedimentation would be achieved by channeling
stormwater from the slopes to the management facilities and through implementation of standard
erosion and sedimentation control measures. He said that slopes would be stabilized and the owners
would maintain the slopes, as it was within their best interests to do so. Mr. Lewis said that he did
not think another contiguous section of acreage was available to reforest and he also felt it would not
work in the overall scheme of a business park. He added that landscaping is required and many trees
are going to be replaced.
Mr. Wyatt stated that the proposal to create an environmental corridor appears to
protect the stream valley and, therefore, the function of the environmental feature is not endangered.
He said that the location of the environmental corridor creates a natural buffer between the Airport
Business Center property and the Buf lick Heights residential subdivision, which is desirable. He said
that the staff believed that the creation of a perpetual easement to ensure there is no disturbance
within the environmental corridor is a reasonable approach. He added that a "C Category" buffer will
protect the recently approved Chapel Hill residential subdivision and the McClure tract, should Parcel
E maintain the M1 (Light Industrial) District classification.
There were no citizen comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Ellington and seconded by Mr. Morris,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the waiver request by the Adams Family Limited Partnership for the
disturbance of environmental features as prescribed by Section 165-31B(6) and 165-31B(7) of the
Zoning Ordinance for Master Development Plan #009-87 of Airport Business Center (formerly Upper
Valley Business Park).
ADJOURNMENT
p.m.
10
No further business remained to be discussed and the Commission adjourned at 10:15
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director
Charles C. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
MEETING MINUTES
�0
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, Virginia on
November 20, 1996.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice-
Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; John H. Light,
Stonewall District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Terry
Stone, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro
District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; and Vincent
DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; Eric R.
Lawrence, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16 1996
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light, the minutes of October
16, 1996 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
2
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
Mr. Wyatt stated that the November and December DRRS meetings fall on holidays
and recommended that those meetings be canceled since there were no pending items for discussion.
It was the consensus of the Commission that those meetings be canceled.
Comarehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPCI - 11/12/96 Mtg.
Mr. Lawrence reported that the CPPC discussed the draft Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP) and made some changes based on presentations from the library and the school board.
Sanitation Authority SA - 11/19/96 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Boundary Avenue water line has been completed;
the Miller Heights water line has been contracted; work is progressing on sewage problems in
Fredericktowne; and the SA agreed to sign a contract for maintenance of the water storage tanks in
the County. She also reported that a cellular company wants to put antennas on a couple of the
water tanks and a lease is now pending.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning Application 9007-96 of Valley Proteins, Inc. to rezone 1.62 acres from RA (Rural
Areas) to M2 (Industrial General). This property is located at 1444 Indian Hollow Road and
is identified with PIN 41-A-18 in the Gainesboro District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt presented the review agency comments and project history to the
Commission. Mr. Wyatt said that the applicant has proffered that the 1.62 acre site will be utilized
for uses accessory to the proposed office building and has proffered out the majority of the uses
currently permitted in the Ml (Light Industrial) District and the M2 (Industrial General) District. He
3
said that the staff feels the impacts will not be significant.
Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., was present to represent the owners, Valley
Proteins, Inc. and Winchester Rendering, Inc. Mr. Lewis said that the proposed building fits on the
area that is already zoned M2 and the additional acreage being rezoned is strictly to accommodate
the truck maneuvering areas.
There were no public comments.
The Planning Commission had no particular areas of concern with this rezoning.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Rezoning Application #007-96 of Valley Proteins, Inc. to rezone 1.62 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) to M2 (Industrial General) for the construction of uses accessory to a new
office building.
Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Sections 165-82 and 165-44
to allow self-service storage facilities in the M1 (Light Industrial) District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt said that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
received a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow self-service storage operations in the M1
(Light Industrial) District. He said that the DRRS felt the use would be appropriate, provided that
the existing performance standards were revised to accommodate the use. Mr. Wyatt said that input
was received from representatives of the Industrial Parks Association and self-service storage facility
owners in order to revise the existing performance standards.
Mr. Wyatt said that there was some discussion at the DRRS meeting about whether
the individual units within the self-service storage building should be limited to 500 or 1,000 square
feet. Mr. Wyatt said that some of the self-service storage operators who cater to industrial users felt
that the larger square footage was needed, while the self-service facility operators who catered to
residential users were concerned that the larger square footage may create the potential for people
to work or conduct some other business in the units. Mr. Wyatt also explained that the landscaping
and screening requirements were developed using a sliding scale based on the whether the use was
located within a B2, B3, or M1 District, and within a master planned industrial park or office park.
Members of the Planning Commission felt that the larger square footage would be
4
appropriate. They also felt that the sliding scale for landscaping was appropriate.
There were no public comments.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning,
Sections 165-82(D), District Use Regulations, and 165-44(A through G), Self-service Storage
Facilities, with an increase in the size of the individual units within self-service storage buildings, as
described under Section 16544(C), from five -hundred (500) square feet to one -thousand (1,000)
square feet and with landscaping and screening requirements on a sliding scale, as described under
Section 165-44(F) (1 through 4).
Master Development Plan #007-96 of Woodside H to develop 31.58 acres for 80 single family
detached cluster lots. This property, zoned RP (Residential Performance) is located on the
west side of Double Church Road (Rt. 641), south of the Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) intersection,
and is identified with PIN 86-A-21 in the Opequon District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, the design engineers for
the project, was representing the owner, Jeni Company, and he presented the plan to the Commission.
Mr. Maddox said that Route 641 will be relocated and improved, which will eliminate poor site
distance and steep slope issues, and the new entrance has been four-laned. He added that there will
be two intersections serving the Woodside Estates Subdivision, the vast majority of traffic will be
going north to the traffic light.
Regarding the concern about traffic impacts, Mr. Sager asked Mr. Maddox if he would
furnish for the Board of Supervisors' meeting in December, the current traffic count on Route 641
and the estimated number of vehicle trips per day for Woodside II. Commission members asked if
VDOT had comments about the additional traffic flow at the Route 277 intersection and Mr. Maddox
replied that VDOT agreed with them that the increase was fractional and would not change the
characteristics of the intersection.
Commission members asked if the requirements of the road efficiency buffer had been
met. Staff replied that the applicant has proposed a meandering buffer along Double Church Road
(Rt. 641), which extends from 50' to 80' in width. Members of the Commission also inquired about
access to the adjoining Ritter and Racey tracts because they had concerns that these two tracts might
become land -locked. Mr. Wyatt said that the Ritter tract has existing road frontage along Route 641
and the applicant is proposing a street connection to the Racey tract. Mr. Wyatt also pointed out that
the Racey tract is within the Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District. He said that
property owners within this agricultural district have requested that reference be made in the deeds
and sales literature that this subdivision abuts an agricultural and forestal district. It was noted that
the applicant has agreed to do this.
The question of maintenance of the open space and the two storm water management
ponds along a public road was discussed. Staff explained that after a certain percentage of lots have
been sold, the maintenance requirements are the responsibility of the property owners association.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came
forward to speak:
Mrs. Loretta Wymer, adjoining property owner at 731 Double Church Road, said that
she and her husband were opposed to this development during the rezoning and they are still opposed
to it. Mrs. Wymer's property was going to be impacted by the improvements to Double Church
Road. She requested that when her driveway is moved, that the contractor relocate the existing trees
and that the yard be leveled and gently sloped, so as to make the lawn easy to mow. She also
requested at least one inch of topsoil on the old driveway and that the new driveway be paved. Mrs.
Wymer explained to the Commission about the foundation damage she experienced during the
construction of Phase I. She said that Mr. Neff, of E. R. Excavating, Inc., examined the cracks on
the basement floor and wall, which were the result of blasting that took place at Woodside I. She said
that Mr: Neff wanted to wait until all the blasting is completed with the new section and then they will
fix the damage. Mrs. Wymer said that her biggest concern is safety for her children boarding and
departing the school bus, in light of the additional traffic.
Mr. John Stelzl, resident on Route 641, said that he was also opposed to the
development of this site. Mr. Stelzl wanted to make sure that the agricultural and forestal district,
which adjoins this property on several sides, was protected. Mr. Stelz1 requested that trees be planted
along the boundary lines between the Painter and Racey tracts to serve as a buffer between the urban
and rural areas.
Regarding Mrs. Wymer's concerns, Mr. Maddox stated that both he and the
contractor, Mr. Neff of ERR Neff Excavating, Inc., have personally met with Mrs. Wymer on several
occasions. Mr. Maddox said that Mr. Neff is handling the items Mrs. Wymer has indicated and those
will be followed-up by the owner. He explained that the contractor's liability insurance will pay for
repair of the foundation damage, a special drawing of the entrance has been done and attached to the
construction drawings indicating safe slopes and grading, and the driveway will be paved but will be
somewhat steeper. He added that they will also relocate the water main. Mr. Maddox said that they
have examined the possibility of sidewalks to handle children's access to the school bus, however,
VDOT recommended against those because of maintenance issues. Mr. Maddox said that if they can
determine the school bus loading/unloading areas, they will make suitable changes, even as the project
is being built, in order to alleviate any safety issue regarding that intersection. All this has been
approved by the owner, will be put forth in writing and given to Mrs. Wymer so she can be assured
that these things will occur.
G
Regarding the screening question along the borders of the Racey and Ritter tracts, Mr.
Maddox said that the green areas on the master plan represent open space --existing vegetation along
the fence line, which they do not intend to disturb.
Mr. Ours said that his concern at the time of rezoning was the impact of traffic on
Route 277 and this continues to be a concern. Mr. Ours said that the 1993 figure.is 9,000 tpd on
Route 277 and Mr. Maddox has proposed 640 additional tpd. He said that changes in that area in
the past three years include The Village at Sherando, Deer Run Estates, six or seven additional
sections to Fredericktowne Estates, Jefferson Village, additional Georgetown Townhouses,
Woodside I, and Mosby Station and all of these will impact Route 277. Mr. Ours said that his
concern was the issue of infrastructure and developments being established without the ability to
support the traffic. He said that his other concern was one of enforcement. He pointed out that
traffic enforcement in Frederick County is only as good as the equipment and staff available. He
noted that adding to the traffic on Route 277 is the Sherando High School, school bus traffic, and
student drivers.
Commission members were concerned about the traffic situation on Route 277,
however, they pointed out that the State had made the determination that the road could handle the
traffic. They also pointed out that these issues were raised during the time of rezoning. Commission
members felt the proposed development had many fine features --the open space up front to shield the
development from the roadway, the roadway effort worked out with VDOT, the way the developers
have worked with the neighbors to address concerns. Commission members felt they could support
the master plan on that basis.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend
approval of Master Development Plan #007-96 of Woodside II to develop 31.58 acres for 80 single-
family detached cluster residential lots by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE): DeHaven, Wilson, Morris, Ellington, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Stone
NO: Ours
DRAFT 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
No Action
Mr. Lawrence presented the 1997 draft update of Frederick County's Comprehensive
Plan as completed by the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and staff. Mr.
7
Lawrence said that most of the changes consisted of updates to statistical information, such as school
enrollment and population figures, and also some minor editorial corrections were made where
needed. Mr. Lawrence said the most significant addition is the text relating to the Route 11 North
Land Use Plan.
One of the Commissioners asked if there was a correlation between what the county
projects for development and the school board's population projections. It was noted that past
estimates seemed to always fall short of the actual numbers.
Mr. Tierney said that school officials obtain information from a number of different
sources to estimate their projections. He said that they secure numbers of electrical hook-ups to
obtain information on new households, for example. Mr. Tierney said that the Planning Department
provides school officials with continent sheets for pending subdivisions and also provides them with
copies of approval letters for master development plans. Mr. Tierney explained that this will allow
school officials to determine the number of lots approved in a general location. He said that
estimating the projections is challenging because families move in and out, and it's difficult to
determine the size of the families. He said that you can project how many homes will be built, but
you are just dealing with averages as far as how many children are going to be in those households.
. ' Commissioners applauded the effort to make the comprehensive planning
documentation more pertinent to the entire county by linking it to capital improvements and
infrastructure. They had no outstanding concerns with the plan. No action was taken by the
Commission at this time.
Discussion Regarding the Allowance of Adult Care Facilities in the RP Residential
Performance) District.
No Action
Mr. Wyatt stated that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
considered a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow assisted living care facilities, also
known as adult care facilities, as a permitted use in the RP (Residential Performance) District. Mr.
Wyatt said that the Zoning Ordinance permits "independent" living facilities with accessory care
services as a permitted use and "convalescent or nursing" home facilities as a permitted use with a
conditional use permit. He explained that "assisted" care facilities are marketed as a stepping -stone
between these two. Mr. Wyatt said that Mr. Bruce Hedrick, Director of Development for Balanced
Care Corporation, was present to give the Commission an overview of the desired use. He said that
after Mr. Hedrick's presentation, he would review the issues that arose at the Subcommittee meeting
in order to get a consensus from the Commission for development of an amendment.
8
Mr. Hedrick, Director of Development for Balanced Care Corporation, located in
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, came forward to address the Commission and gave an overview of
the "assisted" living care facilities concept.
Commission members had questions ranging from the architecture reflecting a
"residential" concept rather than "institutional" one; whether or not other jurisdictions allowed this
use by right or with a special use permit; security issues; and what agency had the responsibility to
oversee this type of operation.
Commission members were opposed to a "by -right" use in the RP District, but
supported the use in RP with a conditional use permit. However, they felt the use should be a "by -
right" use in the B2 District because nursing homes and child care facilities were permitted without
a CUP. The Commission also felt that performance standards would be appropriate for the B2 use;
however, for the RP use, they preferred to look at each one on a case-by-case basis, knowing that
some guidance would be in place from the B2, for consistency purposes.
. Cancellation of January 1. 1997 Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to cancel their January 1, 1997 meeting
due to the New Year's Day Holiday.
1997 Planning Commission Retreat
Mr. Tierney said that the 1997 Planning Commission Retreat is scheduled for February
1, 1997. He said that if anyone had ideas for discussion items, the staff would be happy to receive
them.
ADJOURNMENT
p.m.
N
No further business remained to be discussed and the Commission adjourned at 9:00
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director
Charles C. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
(printed January 2, 1997)
Application newly submitted.
REZONINGS:
Valley Proteins, Inc. (REZ
#007-96)
Gainesboro 1.62 acres from RA to M2
Location: _
Intersection of Rt. 608 and Rt. 679
Submitted:
10/29/96
PC Review:
11/20/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
12/11/96 - approved
H. Clay DeGrange Estate
(REZ #006-96)
Gainesboro
51.0540 acres from RA to B2
Location:
N.W. quadrant of Rt. 50W/ Rt. 37 Intersection
Submitted:
10/18/96
PC Review:
11/06/96; 1-15-97
BOS Review:
Not yet scheduled.
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Woodside H (MDP #007-96)
Opequon
80 SF det. dwellings; 33.2856
acres (RP)
Location:
West side of Double Church Rd. (Rt. 641), south of Rt.
277 intersection.
Submitted:
10/29/96
PC Review:
11/20/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
12/11/96 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending completion of review agency comments.
U;�;;oke(MDPM08-96)
Shawnee
Commer./Offices on 20 ac. (B2)
Location:
Ea. of Macedonia Ch. Rd; So. of I-81/37 intrsctn at
Kernstown; No. of Sanitation Authority Hd rtrs.
Submitted:
09/23/96
PC Review:
10/16/96 - recommended approval
B Review:
11/13/96 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending completion of review agency comments.
Frederick Co./I-81 Indust.
Pk. (MDP #009-96)
Back Creek Industrial Use on 85.18 ac. (M2)
Location:
Ea. side Rt. 11 S., .5 mi. no. of Rt. 37/Rt. 11 intrsectn.
Submitted:
09/23/96
PC Review:
10/16/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
11/13/96 - approved
Admin. Approved:
12/13/96
SUBDIVISIONS:
The Village at Sherando
Parcel #1 (SUB #008-96)
I
. . .. . . . . . . . .
Location:
So. of Shenandoah Hills on west side of Greenwood
Road (Rt. 656)
Submitted:
11/22/96
NMP #001-96:
Approved on 09/27/96
Admin. Approved: —Epending
Admin. Approved:
The Village at Sherando
Parcel #1 (SUB #008-96)
I
Opequon
Subdivision of one 1.14784 acre
1 lot (B2)
Location:
Comer of Warrior Drive & Ivory Drive
Submitted:
11/20/96
P 02-92:
Approved on 04/27/92
Admin. Approved:
[Awajtin
Z Recorded Plat
Eastgate Commerce Center
(SUB #007-96)
Shawnee Subdivision of 30.97 acres into
two lots and r -o -w (Ml)
Location:
Southside of Rt. 642 atpro osed Eastgate Drive
Submitted:
11/15/96
PC Review:
12/04/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
12/11/96 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Awaiting signed pla+.s_
Greenwood Road
(SUB #007-95)
Shawnee Subdivision of 2.837 ac. into five
lots (RP)
Location:
W. Side of Greenwood Rd (Rt. 656) approx. 1,400'
north of Sensen Rd. (Rt. 657) intersection
Submitted..
07/22/96
PC Review:
08/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
09/11/96 - Approved
[Admin. Approval:
12/27/96 - Plats signed; awaiting copy of recorded plat
Fredericktowne Est. Sect.
14 & 15 (SUB #004-96)
Opequon 33 SF Trad. Lots on 9.9804
Acres (RP)
Location:
East of Stephens City; N.E. of Sections 11-13
Submitted:
05/02/96
MDP #007-88
A roved 12/05/88
Admin. A roval:
Lect. 15 A roved 12/04/96; Sect. 14 Approved 07/30/96
Valley Mill Estates (SUB)
Stonewall
1 21 SF Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
No. Side of Valley Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
10/23/95
MDP #001-95
Approved 04/26/95
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting bonding, signed plats, & deed of dedication
Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB)
Back Creek 2 Ml Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285
acres)
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
Submitted:
09/08/95
MDP /#003-87
Approved 07/08/87
Pending Admin. Approval
LAwLtin signed plats.
RT&T Partnership (SUB)
Back Creek 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (132)
Location:
Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.)
Submitted:
05/17/95
NMP #003-91
Approved 07/10/91
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication
Briarwood Estates (SUB)
Stonewall
20 SF Det. Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
01/03/94
NIDP #005-93
Approved 12/8/93
Pending Admin. Approval:
Being held at applicants request.
Abrams Point, Phase I
(SUB)
Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots
(RP)
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 Approved
BOS Review:
06/13/90 Approved
11 Pending Admin. Approval:
LAwaiting deed of ded. , letter of credit, and signed plat
Stimpson (SUB)
O equon Two B2 Lots
on:
Town Run Lane
tted:
r
09/23/94
view:
10/19/94 A roved
eview:
10/26/94 A roved
Admin. Approval:
Awaiting signed plat.
SITE PLANS:
Location: East side of Rt. 642 south of I-81/37/642 interchan e
Submitted: 12/26/96
Location: Mines Mill Road, Middletown
Submitted: 11/25/96
Approved: 12/04/96
6
Negley Mini -Storage
(SP #052-96)
Stonewall Mini -Storage on a 3.5704 acre
site (B3)
Location:
127 Mercedes Court
Submitted:
11/18/96
Approved:
Pending
' Northwestern Regional
Juvenile Detention Facility
Stonewall
(SP #051-96)
Addition of detention facility to
-existing regional jail facility
Location:
Intersection of Brooke Rd. & Ft. Collier Rd.
Submitted:
11/13/96
Approved:
Pending
Virginia Apple Storage
(SP #050-96)
Shawnee
Warehousing on 10.2059 acres
(Ml)
Location:
Southeast corner of Victory Lane (Rt. 728) &
Independence Drive at Westview Business Center
Submitted:
11/06/96
Approved:
Pending
Appleland Driving Range
(SP #049-96)
Back Creek
.0861 ac. of a 26 ac. parcel for a
golf driving range (RA)
Location:
U.S. Rt. 11 South of Stephens Cit
Submitted:
11/01/96
Approved:
-Pending
Davenport Insulation (SP
#048-96)
Stonewall
2.5 ac. of a 2.5 ac. site for
industrial use (MI)
Location:
240 Lenoir Drive
Submitted:
11/01/96
Approved:
11/26/96
James Wood H. S. Athletic
Fields (SP #047-96)
Gainesboro Educat. Use; + 10 ac. disturbed
1 of a + 69 ac. tract (RA)
Location:
161 Apple Pie Ridge Road
Submitted:
10/21/96
Approved:
Pending
Toan & Assoc. (SP #046-96)
Gainesboro Kraft warehouse/office addition;
4.6 ac. of 13.8 ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
360 McGhee Road
Submitted:
10/18/96
Approved:
Pending
Winchester 84 Lumber
(SP #045-96)
Stonewall
Storage Shed; 1.19 ac. of a 4.98
ac. tract disturbed (B2)
Location:
Rt. 839
Submitted:
10/14/96
Approved:
Pending
Hilltop House Nursing
Home (SP #044-96)
Stonewall 4,409.2 sq. ft. addition to
nursing home (RP & B2)
Location:
Berryville Pike
Submitted:
10/08/96
Approved:
Pending
Miller Milling East Co.
(SP #043-96)
Stonewall Bldg. Addition (mill) on 0.91 ac.
of a 82.136 ac. parcel (Ml)
Location:
302 Park Center Drive; Fort Collier Industrial Park
Submitted:
09/23/96
A roved:
Pending
Stephenson Emmanual
U.M. Church (SP #038-96)
Stonewall
T -Hangers & Taxiways on 3 ac.
of a 472 ac. site (AP1 & RA)
1,500 sf addition on 3.3515 ac.
tract (RA)
Location:
2720 Martinsburg Pike
Submitted:
08/21/96
12/06/96
Approved:
12/06/96
Frederick Veterinary
Hos ital (SP #037-96)
Opequon
Veterinary Hospital on .50 ac.
of a 2.05 ac. site (RP)
East side of A
for Rd (Rt. 642); so. of Westmoreland Dr
ILocation:
Submitted:
08/21/96
.Approved:
Pending
Winchester Regional
Airport (SP #036-96)
Shawnee
T -Hangers & Taxiways on 3 ac.
of a 472 ac. site (AP1 & RA)
Location:
Winchester Regional Ai ort; 491 Airport Road
Submitted:
08/20/96
Approved:
12/06/96
Hardees Mobile Oil
Conven. Cntr (SP #050-95)
Back Creek
Conven. Cntr/Rest. on a 1.0727
ac. site (RA) (CUP #011-95)
Location:
Southeast corner of Rt. 50 W and Ward Avenue
Submitted:
12/20/95
Approved:
i[
Pending a2proval of review agency comments
Kohls Distribution Facility
(SP #034-96)
Shawnee Warehouse Distrib; 38 disturbed
ac. of 53.27 ac. site (Ml)
Location:
Airport Rd (Rt. 645) in the Airport Business Center
Submitted:
08/02/96
Approved:
Pending
Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil &
Lube Service (SP #030-96)
Opequon
Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash,
1 Drive-Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2)
Location:
152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store)
Submitted:
07/03/96
Approved:
Pendin
Stonewall Mini -Storage (SP
#028-96)
Gainesboro Mini -storage on .25 ac. of a 2.56
1 ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
120 Lenoir Drive
Submitted:
06/20/96
A proved:
Pending
Flying J Travel Plaza (SP
#026-96)
Stonewall
Travel Plaza on 15 acres (B3)
Location:
S.W. corner of the intersection of I-81 & Rt. 669
Submitted:
05/23/96
Approved:
Pending
Cedar Creek Center (SP
#025-96)
Back Creek
Museum on 0.485 ac. of a 3.210
1 acre parcel (Bl)
Location:
8437 Valley Pike (Rt. 11), Middletown
Submitted:
05/16/96
Approved:
Pending
AMOCO/House of Gifts
(SP #022-96)
Gainesboro
as Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft.
area of a 0.916 acre parcel (RA)
Location:
3548 North Frederick Pike
Submitted:
05/08/96
Approved:
Pending
10
Dr. Raymond Fish (SP
#023-9
Stonewall Mini -Golf Facility on 5,000 sq.
ft. of a 16 acre parcel (B2)
Location:
S.E. Corner of 1-81/Hopewell Rd. Intersection
Submitted:
05/09/96
Approved:
Pending
Parkview Apts. (formerly
Valle Mill Apts.)
Shawnee 76 -unit apartment development
(SP #020-96) on 7.684 acres (RP)
Location:
Corner of Rt. 658 & Rt. 659
Submitted:
04/12/96
A roved:
A roved 12/26/96
American Legion Post #021
(SP #018-96)
Stonewall Addition to lodge building on
3.4255 acre site (B2)
Location:
1730 Berryville Pike
Submitted:
04/10/96
A proved:
L Pending
Dominion Knolls (SP #010-
96)
Stonewall 180 TH on 20.278 ac. (RP)
Location:
Intersection of Baker Lane and Gordon Street
Submitted:
02/21/96
Approved: ------Jl
Pending
11
Pegasus Business Center,
Phase I (SP #007-96)
Shawnee Office, Misc. Retail, Business on
2.5 ac of a 6.0623 ac site (B2)
Location:
434 Bufflick Road
Submitted:
02/14/96
Approved:
11/27/96
D.K. Erectors & Main-
tenance, Inc. (SP #051-95)
Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on
1 a 10 acre site (M2)
Location:
4530 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
12/28/95
Approved:
Pending
Wheatlands Wastewater
Facility (SP #047-89)
Opequon
Treatment Facility on 5 Acres
(R5)
Location:
So.West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522
Submitted:
09/12/89
Note:
Being held atapplicant's request.
Flex Tech (SP #057-90)
Stonewall MI Use on 11 Ac. (Ml)
Location:
East side of Ft. Collier Rd.
Submitted:
10/25/90
Note:
Being held atapplicant's request.
12
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Norris M. & Kathleen C.
Westover (CUP #016-96)
Back Creek Commerical Bakery
Location:
1721 Wardensville Grade
Submitted:
10/21/96
PC Review:
12/04/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
01/08/97
Wade & Julie Marrow
(CUP #015-96)
Back Creek Automobile Repair w/o Body
Repair (RA)
Location:
624 Back Mountain Road
Submitted:
10/11/96
PC Review:
11/06/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
12/11/96 - approved
Garris & Eva Poling (CUP
#014-96)
Gainesboro
Antique Shop (RA)
Location:
212 Whitacre Road in Gore
Submitted:
09/27/96
PC Review:
11/06/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
12/11/96 - approved
Peggy Ruble (CUP #012-96)
Gainesboro
Shale Mining (RA)
Location:
532 North Hayfield Road
Submitted:
09/06/96
PC Review:
10/02/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
11/13/96 tabled; 12/11/96 - approved
13
Painter -Lewis, P.L.C.
(CUP #013-96)Food
Gainesboro
11
Country Market/Drive-Thru
1 Service (RA)
Location:
4780 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
09/16/96
PC Review:
11/06/96 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
12/11/96 - approved
VARIANCES:
Daniel E. Beckwith, Jr.
(VAR #021-96)
Gainesboro
5' side yd. variance for an
attached one-story kitchen
Location:
709 Dicks Hollow Road
Submitted:
11/20/96
BZA Review:
12/17/96 - Approved
Chuck & Jane Ewing
(VAR #020-96)
Stonewall
19' side yd. variance for an
attached 3 -car garage
Location:
Hopewell Road (Rt. 672)
Submitted:
11/08/96
BZA Review: Ip
11/27/96 - Approved an 18'9" side yard
14
PC REVIEW: 1/15/97
BOS REVIEW: 2/12/97
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #017-96
CHARLES W. ROSE, JR.
Automobile Repair Without Body Repair
LOCATION: This property is located at 751 Frog Hollow Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 22 -A -10B
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Area) District; Land Uses:
Residential and Vacant
PROPOSED USE: To establish an automobile repair business without body repair.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to a conditional use permit for this
property. However, prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be
constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the
property. Any work performed on the state right-of-ways must be covered by a land use
permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond
coverage.
Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to the proposed
conditional use permit for Mr. Rose's property.
Inspections Department: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code and Section 311, Use Group S (Storage) of the BOCA National Building
Code/1993. Other codes that apply are title 24 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36
Charles W. Rose, Jr.; CUP 9017-96
Page 2
January 3, 1997
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in
Commercial Facilities. Please submit a floor plan for application of a Change of Use
Permit on existing building. Inspection and approval for code compliance shall be
accomplished before issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy.
Fire Marshal: Access to all structures must be maintained at all times. Must comply with
Fire Prevention Code for Service Stations and Garages.
Planning and Zoning: Public garages are permitted within the RA zoning district with
an approved CUP provided that all repair work takes place entirely within an enclosed
structure and all exterior storage of parts is fully screened from view from any adjoining
property. Upon visiting the property, it is evident that the property is surrounded on both
sides and at the rear by dense woodlands. The existing garage is extremely well -screened
from adjoining properties by this woodland. The applicant stated that any vehicles
awaiting repair will be located in the driveway behind the house. There is sufficient space
here to locate up to five vehicles that are awaiting repair. In addition, the house screens
these vehicles when viewing the property from the Route 654 right-of-way. Staff believes
that the establishment of this business would not have a negative impact upon the
surrounding neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 1/15/97 MEETING: Staff recommends approval of this
request and suggests the following conditions be placed on the permit if approved:
1. No outside storage of parts or equipment shall be allowed.
2. No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be allowed to be located externally to
the garage.
3. No inoperative vehicles, as defined by County Ordinances, shall be allowed to be
stored on the property at any time.
4. All repair work must be done inside the garage.
5. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
CUP #017-96 PIN: 22—A-10B
Charles Rose, Jr. (Note: All local zoning is RA)
/7-96
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting 47
BOS Meeting 2..J�_C11
APPLICATION
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
I. AAolicant (The applicant if the X owner other)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
3
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
4. The proper77.
has a road frontage of �,3/ feet and a
depth of Sd- feet and consists of acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by es as
evidenced by deed from u, recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. Is"// on page �a , as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.
Magisterial Distric
Current Zoning -
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING„t��`�Z n
North' s.
East --A- � c£i.1. L�/
South ,;�-,
West as i -c L,;� 56 �L ,
S. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
uAJ,1 4 -�
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: f
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and
in front of (also across street from) the property where
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application: (PLEASE _LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.)
NAME
3
Address
t? %
/
Aa
e
Property
ID#
K�
Address
roA lo
w
� � rs�.-
Property
ID#
2
Address
Property
ID#
gjta Sf 1h e. �o ccupa+►4
3�
Addressela�
Boole- , t
eJr -
r
Property
ID#
Wi�cl��5`cr2-26ol
Address
Property
ID#
Address
Property
ID#
3
I1. 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.
�cx
tuc4
0
� Ip
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
Owners' Mailing Address 7o / rq / �/,� /\C
Owners' Telephone No.
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
}
w• *. C&A NM Smc Sit on 224
M
• L.3�1 ACRES
•�/. T• Gut Itn • 1 STOW •w.y ate..«,,.. '
�1 AWrwr"01*1+- 9--ftm 1_►
t!." *• Ramo
�• IartTod
A • i!l�34.
T• Iis.03
ce .-s+a►:c osw
1 w. T. cu►It�[
•r W
NOTt �
s ... �^4 -.- O'"FIRit SM01MMa11TN1>< ►tJ>r
IS rams IN ruo"ZK Catim
VIRGINIA LAND RECORDS I%
Q OLIC/ R00% 414, fast 5".
c.
J
;' Holli[ LOCATION FOR
- . •= 't.`-`.:, >. JERRY WDYNE EDWA
RDS-
GA'"236oRo MAS �1
tttT[RtAL 013TWer
`' COVNTY,VIROIMIA [IMMOftlMad,
>iCAL�I
,,a toe JUN[ l091f7!
LKXM Na
. R tTC H 1 R RNIIV[Ys
.. STIP"aN! cfN VIROIMIA
%.•i: 1 "Wa �C caarrY scr.
• l..is mu Podmad b as am dw
day of 19 at
`f t 1 ,�MNi b f aaof rNa
mvo••d of faa. dd•Ai. l of
;� ,�• J .� , aad B&M h&v* how psK if 4=8mNa
Lcs.
k.
PC REVIEW: 1/15/97
BOS REVIEW: 2/12/97
Subdivision Application #011-96
BASS HOOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
LOCATION: The property is located at the intersection of Aylor Road (Route 647) and Caroline
Avenue.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-63
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use:
School
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use:
Residential
SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of a 33.796 -acre tract into two lots
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
Department of Transportation: No objection to the subdivision of this property. Before
development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans for review.
Entrances will have to be constructed to VDOT minimum standards to allow for safe egress
and ingress of the property. Prior to recordation, Route 1048 should be added to the Caroline
Avenue right-of-way.
Sanitation, Authority: No comment.
Inspections: No comment required at this time provided no structures are located within
30' of new property line.
Fire Marshal: No comments.
Bass Hoover Elem. School Subdivision
Page 2
January 6, 1997
Engineering: Based on our knowledge of the site topography, it appears that additional
drainage easements will be required across the 10 -acre subdivision, as well as the remaining
school property.
Frederick Co. Public Schools: See attached letter from Thomas Sullivan dated 9-20-96.
Planning and Zoning: This application as presented meets the subdivision ordinance
requirements. Any developmental activity proposed for this site will need to meet the review
agency comments as presented.
Staff Recommendation for 1/15/97: Staff recommends approval of this request.
File: K:\WP`,CMMCOMIvIENTS\BASSHOOV.SUB
Frederick County Public Schools
1415 Amherst Street
Post Office Box 3508
Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546
Telephone: (540) 662-3888 — FAX (540) 722-2788
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent
Ms. Helen Hunt September 20, 1996
Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
139 N. Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Ref: Final Subdivision Plat for County School Board of
Frederick County
Dear Ms. Hunt:
I am in receipt of your request for comments concerning the
final subdivision plat for 10.007 acres of land located at the
intersection of Route 647 (Aylor Road) and Caroline Avenue, and
being the property of Bass -Hoover Elementary School.
We have no objection to the subdividing of this parcel of land
as identified in the attached documents.
If you should have any questions or concerns, please contact
me at your earliest convenience.
cc: R. Thomas Malcolm, FOPS
Sincere=ly,
Thomas Sulli an
Administrative Assistant
to the Superintendent
APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST
SUBDIVISION
FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA
Date: 9/11/96 Application # 0/1-% Fee Paid
Applicant/Agent: _Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
Address: 139 N Cameron Street
Winchester. VA 22601
Phone: 1-540-667-0468
Owners name: County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia
Address: P.O. Box 3508
Winchester-, VA 22604
Phone: 1-540-662-3888
Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority
stockholders:
Contact Person: Helen Hall
Phone: 1-540-667-0468
Name of Subdivision: N/A
Number of Lots 2 Total Acreage 33.796
Property Location: Intersection of Virginia Secondary Route 647 (Aylor Rd.)
and Caroline Avenue and being the property for Bass Hoover Elementary School
(Give State Rt.#, name, distance and direction from intersection)
Magisterial District
Qpeauon
Property Identification Number PIN
.,1 ;oS
8 AND
r,
Property zoning and present use: RP - School
Adjoining property zoning and use: RP - Residential
Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project?
Yes No X
If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of
Supervisors?
Yes No
What was the MDP title?
Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP?
Yes No
If yes, specify what changes:
Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot)
Number and types of housing units in this development:
Number
Types
�•
� �ZZ
•� SN,nj; r
�! .,'_ i. 4141LLAG WAKELAIJ o r ow B 1
1 tb ESTATE. " ;�
w�r4 i�h E _ 64) �� S REI`)�l RICK _ ,m
M, NO'% — i 7N. M1
VICINITY )AAP j REDER KTO N
rl
j xs n. SCALE: 1'2000 J STS +'
APPROVED BY
Virginia Department of Transportation
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Planning Commission
Board of Supervisors
Subdivision Administrator_
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
OWNERS CONSENT
The above and foregoing Final Plot Of Subdivision of the land standing in the
name of COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as appears in the
accompanying plat, is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the
undersigned owners, proprietors, and trustees if
NOTARY PUBLIC
C, ' aC lS , a Notary Public in and for the State of
Virginia, at large, do hereby certify that IKbWla— Mo��Cblw•
whose name is signed to the foregoing Owner's Consent, has acknowledged the
some before me in my state.
Given under my hand this S+ day of NoV'eVV 4 -r-- lg�
My commission expires 19 9 Q
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the land contained in this Final Plat Of Subdivision
is the land conveyed to COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
by deed dated 24 November 1972, said deed recorded in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 401 at Page 483.
TM 75 ((A)) Pcl 63
FINAL PLAT OF SUBDI VISION
Zoned.- RP
Use: School
Of The Land Of
COUNTY SCHOOL HOARD OF
1. T H 4F
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
��P 1
OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Plat: MS-96194.dwg FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
o CERTIFiCAT N0. -.
u 119' ,
DATE: it November 1996 Cover Sheet Sheet 1 of 2
1z�✓�'
MARSH & ILEGGE
F
C4,yD SU1 Z4
Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
139 North Cameron Stmt Winchester. Virginia 22601
_- - _
(540) 667-0468 Fox (540) 667-0469
RT& g47
p.00
VA. SEC. AyL03 R/W
LLEY GCORP. AGE ND LINE TABLE
INVESTMENT1?
OB 529 - P 421
Ll 563.10 39"E- 14.57'
L 1
ZONED: RP
L2 S39 28 58 E-158.86 '
L2
L3 USE: RESIDENTIAL
L3 55328'48"E-30.29'
(�
IRF IRF��00
EX. 20' DRAINAGE ESM'T
DB 535 - P 681 '
\SO
w�
wI
�o
rn
'
n �t_
C
_
tv0
w "4'
.
P.I.N. 75-A-63F�
w
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD I
10.007 Acres
`- g
OF FREDERICK COUNTY,
`sss?gF
DB 401 - P 483
L = 42 85
P.I.N.?
I!RS .N. 75—A-63 30 S1,4'
23.789 ACRES
f JO DRA/Nq -.310 6•
_
(Remainder) `/EREBY
64SE
Q COUN/CA
T DEDTE-D TO
O FREDER/CK 561 j'
V,
N cp
2 I vii
_ 25' B.R_L
IRS _ _ !RF
LOT 225 I I N53'12 Ol 7 545.00"
II If OT 226�LOT'22LOT 228 LOT 229 LOT 230
EX. 20' WALKWAY, ! I FRED RICKTO E SEC ON THREE
UTILITY do
DRAINAGE EASEMENT--ill i� ZONED: RP I USE: Tj'ESOEM77AL
II
DB 443 - P 310 NOTES
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. No title report furnished.
LOT 225 - JEFFREY A: DIEHL. ET UX - DB 585-P 892 2• Easements may exist that
LOT 226 - FORREST E. M/LLS, ET UX - OB 684-P 102 are _not shown.
LOT 227 - ROBERT P. COLSON, ET UX - DB 631-P 75
LOT 228 - FRANK W. WELCH, JR., ET UX - OB 559-P 708 0 73 Iso Soo
LOT 219 - V/R 751 K. HAGERTY &CHARLES W. COULTER
751
OB -P 1406
LOT 230 - DIANA M. HICKERSON - DB 520-P 341
Graphic Scale In Feet
LEGEND 1"- 150,
IRF Iron Rod Found FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVIS/ON
IRS Iron Rod Set
B.R.L. Building Restriction Line Of The Lond Of
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF
t
jH° FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Plat: M5-96194.dwg FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
NO. DATE: 1/ November 1996 SCALE: 1--150' Sheet 2 of 2
MARS14 & ILEGGE
Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
199 North Cameron Street Winchester, Vlrpinle 22601
(340) 667-0165 Far (340) 667-0469
i� COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director
RE: 1997 ISTEA Enhancement Application for Third Winchester Battlefield
Acquisition
DATE: December 29, 1996
The Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites (APCWS) has petitioned Frederick County
to assist in the preparation of a grant application for ISTEA funding that will be utilized to acquire
the Third Winchester Battlefield. The Third Winchester Battlefield is one of three core Civil War
battlefield sites that is envisioned to anchor the Winchester -Frederick County Civil War Tour
Network. The other two core battlefield sites include Cedar Creek and Kernstown. As you know,
Cedar Creek is secure and efforts to acquire Kernstown are ongoing.
The use of ISTEA Enhancement funds to acquire the Third Winchester Battlefield is one of several
funding strategies being utilized by APCWS. The Civil War Trust administered $500,000 to APCWS
through the sale of commemorative coins which has been used as a down payment for the battlefield
site. APCWS has made payments in the amount of $50,000 towards the principle on the notes, and
has received approval for the use of IDA Revenue Bonds if needed. The receipt of funds through the
ISTEA Enhancement Program will minimize the amount of capital to be borrowed by APCWS for
acquisition.
Included with this memorandum is a draft application prepared by staff. This application will be
presented for endorsement by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. A similar
application was endorsed by Frederick County in 1996; however, the application was not successful
in securing ISTEA Enhancement funds. The 1997 ISTEA Enhancement Program application for the
acquisition of the Third Winchester Battlefield is the only application that will be presented for
consideration by Frederick County.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Civil War Battlefield Tour Network - Phase II
ISTEA Enhancement Program Application Form
Third Winchester Battlefield Acquisition
DRAFT
1. Applicant: The Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, Inc. (APCWS).
2. Responsible Persons: Robt K. Edmiston, APCWS Director of Real Estate, (540) 371-1860.
3. Enhancement Activities:
Primary Activities
2. Acquisition of Scenic Easements and Scenic or Historic Sites
Provide the opportunity to offset a significant portion of the purchase costs necessary to
acquire the Third Winchester Battlefield, also known as the Opequon Battlefield. Acquisition
will enhance the transportation experience by preserving land with significant historic,
aesthetic, natural, visual, and open space values. Acquisition will further enhance the
transportation experience as a key component of the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network that
is being developed by Frederick County, Virginia, and the City of Winchester, Virginia.
5. Historic Preservation
Provide the opportunity to enhance the transportation system by enabling the public to
appreciate the historic significance of the Third Winchester Battlefield. Acquisition will assist
in the protection and stabilization of this historic site which is eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. Acquisition will further enhance the transportation
system based on its functional proximity within the overall Civil War Battlefield Tour
Network. The Civil War Battlefield Tour Network will be planned and designed to provide
intermodal travel opportunities throughout this transportation system.
URAr'T
Secondary Activities
I. Provision of Facififtesfor Bicycles and Pedestrians
The Civil War Battlefield Tour Network will enhance the transportation system through the
creation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These facilities will include enhancements to the
existing guided, self -guided, and custom walking tours within the historic downtown district
of the City of Winchester, and the creation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in and around
the sites that will comprise the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network. New bicycle and
pedestrian facilities that will provide intermodal opportunities will be developed in accordance
with the improvements specified in the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan.
the Bicycle Plan for the City of Winchester and Frederick Counts and the Battlefield
Network Plan, Frederick County - Winchester. VA.
3. Scenic or Historic Road Programs
The acquisition of the Third Winchester Battlefield will be instrumental in protecting and
maintaining the scenic, historic, and natural integrity of Redbud Road (Route 661), and
Interstate 81. Third Winchester has been identified as a Civil War Battlefield site of
significance by the Virginia Department of Transportation, as evidenced on the 1994 Man
of Scenic Roads in Virginia. This map also identifies Cedar Creek and First and Second
Kernstown as significant Civil War Battlefields. The battlefields depicted on the 1994 Man
of Scenic Roads in Virginia constitute the critical sites that are essential to secure in order to
establish the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network.
4. Landscaping and Other Scenic Beautification
Scenic beautification will include the preservation of currently pristine, though threatened,
battlefield panoramas at critical sites through land acquisition and, possibly, through
acquisition of scenic or conservation easements for areas not available for fee -simple
acquisition Efforts are underway to develop view sheds and to control adjacent temporally
incompatible development. The local jurisdictions and the local Chamber of Commerce are
working with private developers to improve the appearance of key tourism corridors.
Landscaping includes the implementation of corridor tree planting projects such as those
undertaken by the City Tree Commission along historic routes and tourism gateways.
Extensive research by battlefield scholars offers starting points for restoration of battlefield
sites and network routes.
2
9. Archaeological Planning and Research
Strategies will be developed to ensure that adequate planning, research, and analysis is
undertaken to identify all significant archaeological resources on sites that will become part
of the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network. This effort will assist in the interpretation of
historic structures and areas that may otherwise have been slated for disturbance by future
improvements to these sites. A resource management plan is being prepared for the
Kernstown Battlefields. Similar efforts will be undertaken, at Third Winchester once this
battlefield is secured to ensure that potential archaeological features are preserved.
4. Project Location and Description: The 222 -acre site proposed for acquisition is located within
the Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia. This sitecontains significant areas
ofthe Third Winchester Battlefield core area including the First Woods, Second Woods and Middle
Field areas where the most intense fighting occurred. This site is visible from Interstate 81 to the east,
just north of Exit 315 (Route 7), and maintains road frontage along Redbud Road (Route 661).
Redbud Road, located on the south side of Route 11, provides exceptional access to Third
Winchester from Interstate 81 Exit 317. Redbud Road is located within 800 feet of the Interstate 81
north and south egress ramps, and is directly aligned with the Interstate 81 north ingress ramp.
The 222 -acre core area remains in pristine condition, and contains a dense woodland and vegetative
cover which comprised a significant portion of the First Woods, as well as a smaller portion of the
Second Woods. Redbud Run traverses the 222 acres through two portions of this site, including an
area of the First Woods. Acquisition of the Third Winchester Battlefield provides an opportunity to
enhance land, air and water quality, while preserving view sheds and open space areas.
The 222 -acre core area is currently zoned to permit high density residential use. The property owner
has proffered a generalized development plan to Frederick County which was approved as part of the
rezoning application. This development plan permits single family and townhouse development
throughout the site which will completely decimate the First Woods and Middle Field areas. A small
portion of this site is proposed to remain in contiguous open space for the purpose of battlefield
preservation; however, this area appears to be associated with the Redbud Run floodplain, and does
not assist in the preservation of the significant areas of this battlefield. Adjoining property is zoned
for commercial, residential, and agricultural use. Unless the preservation of Third Winchester is
accomplished, residential development is eminent. A new elementary school is being constructed on
adjoining property to the west of the core area. This facility is scheduled to open in the fall of 1996.
A great opportunity exists to provide educational benefits based on this functional proximity.
The acquisition of the Third Winchester Battlefield, also known as the Opequon Battlefield, is
consistent with the goals, strategies, and action program of the Battlefield Network Plan, Frederick
County- Winchester VA. This acquisition is a critical component for the development of the Civil
War Battlefield Tour Network, and is notable in that it demonstrates a multi-governmental/private
focus, historic significance, and intermodal access.
3
Multi-Governmental/Private Focus:
National Park Service S) - The NPS published the Study of Civil War Sites in the
Shenandoah Vallexof Vir inia This study was authorized by Public Law 101-628, and was
mandated to identify significant Civil War sites, establish their relative importance, determine
their condition, assess threats to their integrity and provide preservation alternatives. This
study indicates that Third Winchester, also known as the Opequon Battlefield is a part of one
of the largest and most significant battlefields of the Valley, and retains considerable integrity.
The study has assessed Third Winchester as having the highest risk of threat for substantial
loss of resources over the next ten (10) years, and recommends that immediate action be
taken to acquire this site. Preservation tools recommended by this study include fee simple
acquisition by land mist, public/private commemorative efforts, public access easements, and
interpretive signs, shelters and materials. APCWS acquisition efforts coupled with local
government and private efforts as described in the Battlefield Network Plan, Frederick
County - Winchester. VA provide a realistic means for accomplishing these recommendations.
The NPS Battlefield Protection Partnership Program awarded a grant to support the planning
process involved with a Resource Management Plan. This grant has been utilized to complete
the Battlefield Network Plan, Frederick County - Winchester. VA. The focus of this plan is
to create a system of battlefields and other historic open space and sites which will include
the stabilization of uses, site access, interpretative areas, the continuation of agriculture, the
protection of land cover and vegetation, and the treatment of view sheds.
Civil War Sites Advisory Committee (CWSAC - In 1991, Congress established the CWSAC
to identify significant Civil War sites, determine their condition, assess threats to their
integrity, and offer alternatives for their preservation and interpretation. The CWSAC
classified the 384 principal battles of the Civil War according to their historic significance
with category A being the most significant and category D being the least significant. Only
45 battlefield sites received an "A" ranking, meaning that these sites had a decisive influence
on a campaign and a direct impact on the course of the Civil War. The Third Winchester
Battlefield and the Cedar Creek Battlefield received an "A" ranking from the CWSAC. The
CWSAC determined that Third Winchester maintained a significant level of threat and could
be lost unless preventive actions are taken.
State of Virginia - The State of Virginia has incorporated the Third Winchester Battlefield
into the update of the 1996 Virginia Outdoor Plan. The 1996 Plan, which will be published
in June 1996, includes other local battlefields and historic sites such as Cedar Creek, First and
Second Kemstown, Stephensons Depot, and Star Fort. It is intended that these battlefields
and historic sites be part of a regional park network system which will be linked by bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. The State of Virginia has also developed the 1994 Map of Scenic
Roads in Virginia to promote tourism. This map designates Third Winchester, Cedar Creek,
and the Kernstown Battlefields as points of interest. Some of these points of interest are
4
accessible from State Scenic Roads.
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission (LFPDC) - The LFPDC has utilized various grants
to identify a regional battlefield tour network. To date, the LFPDC has created the
Shenandoah Valley Civil War Tour Road Network Plan Map. Third Winchester and other
significant battlefield sites within the City of Winchester and Frederick County, Virginia, that
are proposed to be part of the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network, have been included as a
part of this regional network.
Winchester/Frederick County Battlefield Task Force - This Task Force has produced the
Battlefield Network Plan. Frederick CoupU Winchester VA. This plan establishes a
strategic plan for a system of battlefields and other historic open space and sites to preserve
the heritage of the community, to promote tourism, and to provide educational opportunities.
This group will supervise the preparation of the plan for the Civil War Battlefield Tour
Network which will provide intermodal transportation opportunities for visitors to the sites.
This plan identifies critical battlefield sites and significant historical sites within the City of
Winchester and Frederick County.
Preservation of Historic Winchester WjD /Kurtz Cultural Center - The "Shenandoah Valley:
Crossroads of the Civil War" information center was opened irr 1993. This information center
recorded over 15,000 visitors during 1993; 24,814 visitors during 1994; and 29,560 visitors
during 1995. The Kurtz Cultural Center will play a significant role in the development of the
Civil War Battlefield Tour Network, and will continue to provide educational opportunities
for tourists within the Winchester environs as evidenced by the significant increase in visitors
over the past three years. Various guided and unguided tours which focus on Civil War era
structures are currently offered through PHW.
Shenandoah University Civil War Institute - The Civil War Institute was founded in 1991 as
an official academic program at Shenandoah University. This program offers educational
opportunities in research and publishing, and promotes guided tours of historically significant
areas. Dr. Brandon H. Beck, Civil War Institute Director, has been appointed to the newly
created Hugh D. and Virginia McCormick Chair in Civil War History.
Handley Regional Librn Archives - The Archives assists and serves thousands of researchers
from across the United States annually. Researchers and visitors utilize the Archives as an
important resource to locate information regarding their Civil War ancestors and the battles
which occurred in the surrounding areas, enabling them to visit specific sites which are
important to them.
Historic Significance:
-UkAfl'f
In September of 1992, the National Park Service published a Study of Civil War Sites in the
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. These battlefields were associated with Stonewall Jackson's Valley
Campaign of 1862, the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863, and the Early -Sheridan Campaigns of 1864.
Of the fifteen battles that comprised these three campaigns, six were located in Frederick County and
the City of Winchester. The three Civil War Campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley were of major
significance to the history of our Nation.
The major north -south route through the Shenandoah Valley has always followed the Valley Pike
(now known as U.S. Route 11). Historically, this route supported travel and economic activities in
the Shenandoah Valley. This route played a major role during the Civil War, as armed forces traveled
north and south. The City of Winchester served as a transportation hub and economic center, and
became an important base of operations for the three Valley Campaigns. As such, the areas around
the City of Winchester and in eastern Frederick County along the Valley Pike became the location
of important battles. Winchester changed hands 72 times during these campaigns, more times than
any other area during the course of the Civil War.
The Third Battle of Winchester, also known as the Opequon Battlefield, was the most significant
battle of the Early -Sheridan Campaign of 1864 in the Shenandoah Valley. Third Winchester is
described by the National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley as the
"largest and most desperately contested battle of the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley". Several
Union and Confederate charges across the Middle Field located between the First and Second Woods
resulted in more than 9,000 casualties, including Confederate General Robert Rodes. Union forces
sustained the greatest amount of casualties, however, their forces were ultimately successful in driving
the Confederate forces out of the Second Woods and into retreat from the Valley. The significance
of the Third Battle of Winchester is that it finally broke the Confederate control of Winchester and
the Shenandoah Valley for the remaining months of the Civil War. This battle also contributed
significantly to the reelection of President Abraham.
Adjoining the Third Winchester Battlefield is the 132 -acre Hackwood estate and the 8,000 square
foot Hackwood House. This site played a significant role in the Third Battle of Winchester. The
Hackwood Estate was first utilized as a command center for the Confederate Army, and later utilized
as a field hospital for both sides during the Third Battle of Winchester. The National Park Service's
Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley states that "the Hackwood House, dating back to
1777, is a historic treasure in its own right. Preservation of this house and parcel would contribute
substantially to the interpretation of Third Winchester." The adjoining Hackwood Estate was
purchased with private money in October of 1994. It is the intention of the owner to restore the
grounds and the house to create a Civil War Battlefield Museum and interpretive center. The
Hackwood Estate is exceptionally visible from Interstate 81. The functional proximity of the
Hackwood Estate to Third Winchester provides a unique opportunity to secure another critical site
necessary for the creation of the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network.
Im. �1. L F
The Civil War Battlefield Tour Network will provide an important educational benefit to travelers
and local citizens. The critical battlefield sites of the 1862 and 1864 Valley Campaigns are the focus
of preservation for this network. These critical sites include the Kernstown Battlefields, the Cedar
Creek Battlefield, and the Third Winchester Battlefield. The Kernstown Battlefields were significant
in that the First Battle of Kemstown was General Stonewall Jackson's only defeat, and the Second
Battle of Kernstown was one of the few Confederate victories during 1864. These battles figured
prominently in maneuvers leading up to the First and Second Battles of Winchester. The significance
of the Battle of Cedar Creek is that it ended Confederate efforts to invade the north, and continued
General Sheridan's string of victories during the 1864 Campaign. Victories at Cedar Creek and
Third Winchester were instrumental in the re-election of President Abraham Lincoln. Efforts by the
local governments, the private sector, the Cedar Creek Foundation and APCWS have produced a
significant amount of the capital necessary to secure these three critical battlefields. Additional
assistance from the ISTEA Enhancement Program will enable these groups to finalize property
acquisition and will enable the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network to become a reality.
Intermodal Tour Network:
Private Automobile Mode - Existing arterial, collector, and local roads enable easy travel to
all critical battlefield sites and all significant historical sites following historical routes. The
Civil War Battlefield Tour Network will be an enhancement to travel on Interstate 81, Valley
Pike and other highways in our region. The battlefield plan will develop a system of signs,
tum -offs, and other interpretive features along these routes that will enhance the
transportation network and ensure safety.
Group Bus Tour Mode - Bus tours have been developed by the Winchester -Frederick County
Chamber of Commerce using a Civil War theme. The sites identified within the Civil War
Battlefield Tour Network would be easily accessible as a part of these tours.
City Bus Mode - Bus transit exists within the City of Winchester. The existing travel routes
provide access to many of the battlefield sites and to the historical downtown area of the City
of Winchester.
Bicycle Mode - A plan has been developed that provides bicycle interconnections of all critical
and historically significant sites identified within the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network. The
plan utilizes existing rides specified in the Winchester Wheelmen's Ride Booklet and routes
identified by the Winchester/Frederick County Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Pedestrian Mode - Public access will be provided onto all battlefield sites within the Civil War
Battlefield Tour Network. Walking tours currently exist for the historic downtown area of
the City of Winchester where the Stonewall Jackson Museum and many other Civil War era
structures remain intact. Trail systems will be provided throughout the battlefield tour
7
network which will follow historic farm lanes and other routes. The goal will be to provide
good public access while maintaining the pristine condition of the site.
Rail Mode - Excursions along existing rail lines which interconnect the Civil War Battlefield
Tour Network sites are being pursued as a future mode of transportation. Many critical
battlefield sites in the City of Winchester and Frederick County are adjacent to rail facilities
and connect, for example, to Harper's Ferry to the north.
5. Priority Number. This ISTEA Enhancement Program proposal was determined to be the number
one priority project of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors.
6. Hearing/Endorsements: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for
this proposal on Wednesday, January 22, 1997 at 7:15 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting
Room, Frederick County Administration Building. A resolution of endorsement and a copy of the
public notice from this meeting is enclosed.
This Enhancement Proposal has received endorsements from Dr. Gary W. Gallager, Professor of
American History at Penn State University, Dr. James M. McPherson, Professor of AmericanHistory
at Princeton University, the Civil War Trust, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Lord
Fairfax Planning District Commission, the Frederick County Planning Commission, the Winchester -
Frederick County Economic Development Commission, the Winchester -Frederick County Chamber
of Commerce, the Frederick County Transportation Committee, the Civil War Institute of
Shenandoah University, the Winchester Wheelmen Bicycle Club, and the Handley Regional Library
Archives.
7. Project Schedule:
Phase II Primary Activity - The acquisition of the 222 -acre Caleb Heights portion of the Third
Winchester Battlefield Site, also known as the Opequon Battlefield.
Phase II Seconda1y Activity - The completion of a Resource Management Plan for Third
Winchester. The implementation of interpretive elements that will enhance the continuity and
travel experience between and throughout acquired sites.
Su�ient Actions - Ensuing actions in relation to other sites that are part of the Civil War
Battlefield Tour Network include property acquisition through public and private endeavors,
implementation of interpretive elements that will enhance the continuity and travel experience
between and throughout the acquired sites, and continued participation with other
jurisdictions in the development of heritage tours throughout the Shenandoah Valley as
promoted within the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission's Shenandoah Valley Civil
War Tour Road Network Plan.
S. Project Ownership: The property will be owned initially by the Association for the Preservation
of Civil War Sites, Inc. (APCWS) and maintained in its current pristine condition as open space.
Current activities are underway toward the establishment of a Civil War Task Force at the State level.
This Task Force will work with the National Park Service and private foundations to establish
cooperative agreements for acceptance and maintenance of acquired properties and their facilities.
It is envisioned that this property will be donated for the purpose of inclusion in the Shenandoah
Valley National Battlefield Park. If Federal legislation is not enacted and the Shenandoah Valley Civil
War Battlefield Park is not created, alternative arrangements will be made involving the
Commonwealth to select a reputable private foundation or organization.
9.1996 ISTEA ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM REQUEST:
Total Project Cost (Phase II):
Requested ISTEA Enhancement Funding:
Local Match Required:
Local Match Provided:
Description of Local Match:
$2,524,000 (222 -Acre Acquisition)
$1,974,000
$ 500,000
$ 550,000
The Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, Inc. (APCWS) has structured a purchase
arrangement with the property owner which provides $500,000 towards the acquisition of this 222 -
acre parcel. The $500,000 was administered to APCWS by the Civil War Trust in June 1995. The
Civil War Trust raised $5,000,000 through the sale of U.S. Must Commemorative Coins as authorized
by the Civil War Battlefield Commemorative Coin Act of 1992.. This one-time commission was
intended to provide money for the acquisition of significant Civil War sites throughout the Nation.
Third Winchester was the first battlefield to receive money from the Civil War Trust for this purpose.
The Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, Inc. (APCWS) intends to purchase the Third
Winchester Battlefield. APCWS envisions that this site and other secured battlefield sites will be
included in the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefield Park, or within a state, regional, or locally
managed park system. Purchase of less than all of the site will limit the viability of the project.
However, APCWS will accept ISTEA Enhancers:ent Program Funding for less than the full
purchase price The applicants are seeking alternative sources of funding. If ISTEA Enhancement
Program Funding is provided for less than the amount provided, alternative sources will be sought
to supplement the ISTEA funding.
0
10. Benefits: The acquisition of the Third Winchester Battlefield, also known as the Opequon
Battlefield, is essential for the creation of a Civil War Battlefield Tour Network in the City of
Winchester and Frederick County. Such a network will be an enhancement to travel on Interstate 81
and the other highways in our region. The Third Winchester Battlefield will also be a part of a larger
regional Shenandoah Valley Tour Network. Many benefits will be realized through the acquisition
of the Third Winchester Battlefield. These benefits include enhancements to the transportation
network, environmental preservation, scenic and aesthetic features, and public education.
Transportation Benefits - The preservation of the Third Winchester Battlefield and other
significant historic sites will provide an opportunity to create a network travel system that will
promote intermodal choices. All components of this network will be integrated and
interconnected, creating an ongoing enhancement to the overall transportation system. The
creation of this intermodal network is an innovative technique that will permit various modes
of travel within the community through an integrated, enhanced transportation system.
Environmental Benefits - The preservation of the Third Winchester Battlefield will enhance
land, air, and water quality. Deer and other wildlife have been located on the battlefield site.
Under this proposal, it will continue to serve as wildlife habitat. The preservation of this site
will promote the maintenance of air quality. The site is traversed by Redbud Run; therefore,
preservation will promote water quality. The maintenance of this open space will be highly
compatible with surrounding urban and rural uses.
Scenic and Aesthetic Benefits - The preservation of the Third Winchester Battlefield will
maintain the outstanding open space views from Interstate 81 and other surrounding roads.
The existing property is a rural site with vast open fields and wooded areas. From any
aesthetic viewpoint, it will provide a valuable open space area.
Public Education Benefits - The preservation of the Third Winchester Battlefield and other
critical battlefield sites and notable historic sites in the area contribute significantly to the
history of Virginia and the Nation. The sites involved are of national and statewide historic
significance. There is a demonstratable need to preserve this heritage and to use it to educate
our children. It will clearly improve the quality of life for the community.
Economic Benefits - The preservation of the Third Winchester Battlefield and other critical
battlefield sites and notable historic sites in the area will be instrumental in increasing tourism
activities in Winchester/Frederick County, the Shenandoah Valley, and the state of Virginia.
The creation of the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network will enhance the community's appeal
as a destination point for tourists which will create opportunities for tourism in other areas
of the state. The successful preservation of the Third Winchester Battlefield would thus serve
as a model for the overall strategy of saving irreplaceable historic sites by treating them as
economic assets that can create employment opportunities, generate state and local tax
dollars, and fulfill state, regional, and local tourism marketing efforts.
10
h�
r
Conclusion:
The Civil War Battlefield Tour Network will attract and be used by out-of-state and in-state travelers.
It will contribute to the statewide and local tourism development efforts. It will provide an
opportunity to contribute to an integrated open space and park system that is based on historic values.
This park system will be integrated with an historic travel way system involving local roads, bikeways,
and pedestrian routes. These park and travel systems will be used by local residents and tourists. The
opportunity for innovation involves the combination of transportation, historic preservation and open
space preservation. Such an integrated approach will greatly improve the quality of life for area
residents and for travelers. It should also be noted that the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network is a
multi jurisdictional project, and represents a significant public/private partnership effort. This proposal
is the first step toward the creation of an Intermodal Tour Network that will provide the kinds of
travel enhancements and benefits envisioned by the ISTEA legislation.
II
PC REVIEW DATE: 11/6/96 (Tabled for 90 days); 1/15/97
BOS REVIEW DATE: (Date not set)
REZONING APPLICATION #006-96
H. CLAY DeGRANGE ESTATE
To Rezone 51.0540 acres from RA (Rural Areas)
to B2 (Business General)
LOCATION: This property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Rt. 50 West
and Route 37.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 53-A-68
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Land Use: Vacant and
agricultural
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Land Uses:
Vacant, Agricultural, Residential, Commercial
PROPOSED USE: General business uses
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from Robert Childress dated August
2,1996. --rz
Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority: The Authority is currently studying the feasibility of
providing water and sewer service to this area. The nearest FCSA lines are at the intersection of Rt.
522 and Fox Drive.
DeGrange, REZ #006-96
Page 2
January 7, 1997
Public Works: We have no comment at this time. Stormwater management should be included
ti in the master development plan.
Fire and Rescue: See attached letters from Doug Kiracofe, Fire Marshal, dated October 11
and October 16, 1996.
Parks and Recreation: The Parks and Recreation Department would suggest that the developer
consider a proffer of park land, within the acreage being requested to be rezoned, to serve the
residents of western Frederick County.
County Attornex: Proffers appear to be appropriately phrased. The money should go to the
County, not to the fire company.
Planning & Zoning: The property proposed for rezoning is located within the County's Sewer and
Water Service Area, a portion is located within the Urban Development Area, and the property is
adjacent to a major interchange. The site appears suited for business development as is indicated by
the recently adopted Round Hill and Use Plan. -�
Proffers
The application materials include a proffered "Concept Plan" which depicts a great many of the
design features and road improvements discussed in the Round Hill Land Use Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan. The Concept Plan should be dated and the date included in description of the
Plan in the proffer statement. This is to avoid confusion now, and in the future, over what version
of the Plan was intended to be proffered.
The application also proffers the following:
underground utilities
a ten -foot landscaped strip along Route 50 (A description of the type or amount of
landscaping to be provided should be included in the statement.)
the design and construction of roads in accordance with the County's adopted "thoroughfare
plan" (The roads shown comply with the adopted Round mill Land Use Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan. The proffer should reference one of these rather than a "thoroughfare
plan" which the County does not have.)
DeGrange, REZ #006-96
Page 3
January 7, 1997
a traffic signal at the intersection of Ward Avenue
a single additional entrance (ingress only) on Route 50 (This would be in addition to the main
access road)
• a monetary contribution to the Round Hill Fire and Rescue Company in
the amount of $12,161, payable at the time of issuance of a building permit,
to cover capital costs to the company associated with the rezoning.
The application package requires a signed proffer statement be submitted with the application
materials. This is because the statement is invalid unless signed. A signed statement must be
provided prior to approval of the rezoning.
Impacts: 161 c"r,41" — � , 2
General
The application proffers no specific uses, therefore, we must assume the worst in terms of impacts.
There is a discussion in the impact statement, provided by the applicant, of a projected density of
10,000 sq.ft. per acre. This is half of what the County's Capital Facilities Impact Model uses to
project the fiscal impacts of a B-2 (Business General) zoning. While the traffic generation
projections offered by the applicant appear to be based on this reduced square footage, the reduced
density is not proffered and, therefore, cannot be relied on. Also, there is no indication of what types
of uses the development would consist of. The development of 10,000 sq.ft. of office space would
result in significantly different traffic amounts and peak hour impacts than would a like square
footage of retail space.
Fiscal Impacts
The application indicates that the net fiscal impact of the proposed rezoning would be that projected
by the County's impact model. The numbers generated by the model are generated based on some
very specific assumptions. It is in no way accurate to say that the development of this site will
generate income to the County in the amount indicated by the model unless the site develops in
accordance with the assumptions made by the model. (The model assumes strictly retail
development, at a density of 21,161 sq.ft./acre, not 10,000 sq.ft. as used by the applicant to forecast
traffic generation.) It is inconsistent and misleading to use the lower figure to project traffic and the
higher to project the positive fiscal impact of the proposed zoning.
If we run the model using the 10,000 sq.ft. per acre of retail development, then the net positive fiscal
impact drops from $28.5 million to $13.5 million. If we assume 10,000 sq.ft. of office space, the
DeGrange, REZ 9006-96
Page 4
January 7, 1997
amount drops further still to $8 million.
In an effort to obtain as accurate a picture as possible of the fiscal impacts that might be expected
from this project we ran the model using the land uses listed below. These acreage and square
footage amounts are all based on actual projects located within the County and would account for
51 acres.
• 100 -room hotel on two acres
• Four restaurants at 10,000 each on eight acres
• 180,000 square feet of retail space on 13 acres
• Four service station/convenience stores, totaling 12,000 square feet on three acres
• 100,000 square feet of office space on 15 acres
• Roads and open space totaling 10 acres
The results of this model run show a net fiscal impact credit of $9.4 million.
Traffic Impacts
The application does not provide a traffic impact analysis. The impact statement merely talks of
20,000 trips per day giving no indication of what this number is based on or how the traffic is
projected to be dispersed throughout the surrounding transportation network. Even if we assume
the 20,000 trips is accurate, this would have a tremendus impact on Route 50, ramps to and from
Route 37, and Amherst Street.
The application mentions a peak P.M. traffic count of 1,292. There is no indication of the date of
this information. It would be important to know if the count predates the construction of the Medical
Center. However, with no land use assumptions being given, no peak hour projections, turn
movements or level of service projections being provided, it is impossible to draw any conclusions
about what sort of transportation improvements should be expected.
In a conversation with Mr. Kelly Downs of the Staunton Office of VDOT, he indicated that at a
minimum, this amount of traffic would require an additional lane on Route 50 from the southbound
off ramp of Route 37 to the main entrance of the site, and the addition of a lane to all of the ramps
to and from 37.
Sewer
The Impact statement indicates that sewer service to the site can be provided by the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority. As of 10/25/96, there was no agreement or approved proposal for how or when
DeGrange, REZ #006-96
Page 5
January 7, 1997
sewer would be provided to this site.
Other Impacts
The Round Hill Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan both emphasize the importance of the
appearance of this corridor. Both Plans speak of the need for reduced signage and increased
landscaping and setbacks in order to minimize the detrimental effects of development. While the
physical design information provided meets the criteria discussed in the Plans, design details are not
provided. There is no mention of the type or amount of signage that might accompany the
development, no landscape information is provided other than a 10 -foot strip being proffered along
Route 50 and there is no indication of what this strip will consist of, nor is a bike lane provided for
as is called for in the County's Plan.
Conclusions:
As is the case with any land located within the Urban Development Area or the Sewer and Water
Service Area, rezoning from RA, Rural Areas zoning, to a more intense use is not a given. A wide
array of factors should be taken into consideration such as: the availability of adequate infrastructure
to support the proposed development, the fiscal, environmental and traffic impacts anticipated and
the impacts to, and compatibility with, surrounding land uses must be examined.
Adequate information must be generated in order to accurately forecast impacts of the proposed
development. Without this information there is no way to plan for the mitigation of projected
impacts or weigh relative value of the proposed land use against the anticipated impacts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 11/6/96 PC MEETING:
While the property is well suited for business zoning, there are a number of issues that need to be
resolved and a significant amount of information to be provided prior to approval of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 11/06/96: Commission members
discussed whether the proposed business development might be a first step towards providing sewer
to Round Hill residents; however, due to uncertainty over where the connection might be made and
available capacity and an agreement with the City and owners of the DeGrange property regarding
water supply, it was felt that this proposal would not benefit that effort. Commissioners felt that the
applicant could not adequately address their concerns regarding traffic impacts, required road
improvements, and who would be responsible for their construction. They questioned the applicant's
DeGrange, REZ 4006-96
Page 6
January 7, 1997
intent for the remaining 50 acres of the site because the rezoning had the potential to be a catalyst
for future development of the area and had the potential to change the character of the community.
Members of the Commission felt that the proffers offered for fire and rescue were inadequate and
the 10' buffer strip proposed along Route 50 was insufficient. They felt that the location of the
property, at a major highway intersection, was suitable for B2 Zoning, however, many questions
were still unanswered. They felt that at the time of rezoning, the applicant should be able to define
major impacts such as traffic, corridor protection, and have a finalized proffer statement. By
majority vote, the Commission tabled the rezoning for 90 days to allow the applicant sufficient time
to provide definitive information on traffic impacts, suggested road improvements, phasing, the
responsible party for completion of road improvements, and definitive information on corridor
protection and proffers. There were no citizen comments. The vote was as follows:
YES to table for 90 days): Stone, Light, Copenhaver, Marker, Thomas, Morris, Ours
NO: Ellington, DeHaven
(Mr. Wilson and Mr. Romine were absent.)
2 Planning Staff Comments for 1/15/97
Following the Commission's tabling of the application, staff has had numerous meetings with the
applicant's representatives. As a result of staff's initial comments, Planning Commission discussion,
and the subsequent meetings with staff, the applicant has prepared a revised submission.
The most fundamental changes in the application are that a traffic impact analysis has been
conducted, the proffer statement has been significantly revised and an understanding concerning the
provision of sewer service has been reached.
Proffers:
The applicant has revised the proffer statement to include the following:
Conformance to a Generalized Development Plan which has been dated and submitted as
part of the application materials.
A left turn lane at the intersection of Route 1317 (Wade Avenue) for east bound traffic.
DeGrange, REZ #006-96
Page 7
January 7, 1997
• An acceleration/deceleration lane along the entire frontage of the property and curb and
gutter along this frontage.
• The exit at Wade Avenue will include two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right
turn lane.
• A lane will be added to the southbound off ramp of Route 37.
7k ----A )5o 4,1 &ec i * X6J �J } 4*Nl l<NM cm -4I^ /N b�+d �t� re�i,•►7
• A traffic light will be installed at the Wade Avenue exit.
• A 200 -foot left turn lane for eastbound traffic at the eastern light of the interchange.
• A 30 -foot landscaped green strip along the Route 50 frontage
• A landscaped area along the north side of the main entrance.
• A landscaped area between Route 37 and the center of the site. (The location of this and
other landscaped areas are depicted on the Generalized Development Plan)
• A landscaped area on the western portion of the site.
• The submission of covenants which are in "substantial conformance" with those submitted
wite appli nn
�o • /��r»e, �•.•� po, h� � z -te air„'Z.,c�.� � � � � s -��,�,-� �'iee� -(^o �-Q,
�•,•, G,ote, � � L�c,..s c�s�d. � w�c�,ks�.Lt�.e. �
Staff has identified a couple of technical points that should be corrected on the proffer statement.
*The proffer to provide an off ramp should be reworded to specify the "southbound" ramp
will be improved.
*Under Landscape Design Features, the portion of the statement reading "... shall be prepared
v , and approved with the standards of the Frederick County Zoning Code and... " should be
deleted as conformance with the code is required without a proffer.
-P 'I *Under Covenants and Restrictions, the portion of the statement reading "...as required by
165-38. Shopping centers office parks and industrial parks of the Frederick County Code..."
ould be deleted.
DeGrange, REZ #006-96
Page 8
January 7, 1997
Traffic Analysis:
The traffic analysis makes certain assumptions such as the land uses which will be develop on the
site, and the traffic origination assumptions (that 73% of the trips to the development will be from
the east, 2% from Ward Avenue and the remaining 25% from the west). Various formulas and
methodologies for determining traffic volumes and the resulting effects on intersections hh e been
used. It should be pointed out that the planning staff does not include a transportation engineer.
With this in mind we have requested, and the applicant has agreed, to submit the traffic analysis to
V or eir orma review.
In order to prepare the analysis, the applicant conducted traffic counts to determine current traffic
volumes and turning movements at appropriate points around the Routes 37 and 50 interchange. The
applicant has then prepared traffic generation projections derived from a hypothetical list of uses
on the DeGrange site. These traffic figures were then used to project future traffic volumes at the
various intersections around the interchange which would result from the development of these
hypothetical uses.
The results of the applicant's analysis indicate that the total volume of traffic traveling through the
light on Route 50, just west of Route 37, would rise from the current peak hour volume of 2,462
vehicles to 3,875 vehicles at build out. The traffic volume at the eastern light on Route 50 would
rise from 2,350 vehicles to 3,414 at peak. The impact on the Ward Avenue intersection was
determined based on the numbers projected following completion of the Hardee's/Mobil
Convenience Center. The current peak hour traffic volume is estimated at 1,441 vehicles. A volume
of 3365 vehicles is projected for the peak hour subsequent to development of the DeGrange parcel.
It is unclear to staff whether the numbers used for "current traffic" for the two signalized
intersections included the projected trips that would be generated as a result of the approved
Hardee's/Mobil Convenience Center.
The applicant's analysis indicates that the intersection at Routes 317 and 50 would operate at 72%
of capacity after build out of the hypothetical uses, with the proffered transportation system
improvements in place. The light on Route 50 just east of Route 37 would operate at 95% of its
capacity and the light west of 37 would operate at 82% of its capacity.
,t no possible to determine a resulting level of service at these intersections with
the information provided. As many Commissioners know, level of service is expressed on a scale
of A through F, with "A" being free-flowing traffic, where a driver is not affected by the presence
of other vehicles, "E" being at capacity, and "F" being a breakdown of the intersection. The
Comprehensive Plan speaks of level "C" as being the minimal acceptable level of service. The Plan
also points out that it would be unacceptable for an intersection to go from a level of service "A" to
DeGrange, REZ #00696
Page 9
January 7, 1997
"C" over a relatively short period of time as a result of a single development.
Sewer Service:
i1-6
A series of meetings and discussions have taken place between representativesvarious1of the
applicant, planning staff, elected county officials and the Sanitation Authority. The result of these
meetings being a consk «si3s that the property in question could best be served by extending sewer
service south from the Sunnyside area. This would involve the extension of a line through an area
not currently included within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area or Urban Development
Area. The Authority is prepared to serve the .property, provided funding is available to make the
project feasible and the County is willing to take the necessary steps in terms of Comprehensive Plan
policies, to make the extension possible. Details regarding funding and how best to accommodate
the extension from a planning perspective will need to be resolved prior to development of the site.
Aesthetics:
There has been a great deal of discussion about the desire to preserve the appearance of this corridor.
While development of the site is called for in. the Round Hill Land Use Plan, the Plan also makes
clear that the development should be of a quality that will not detract from the surrounding area or
from the view presented to the traveling public. Staff feels that the proffers provided by the
applicant go a long way toward alleviating concerns over the appearance of the proposed
development. The setback and buffering to be provided along Route 50, as well as the other features
internal to the site, indicate that the applicant has considered aesthetic issues.
The proffer that covenants in "substantial conformance" with those provided as a part of the
application materials does not give the County authority to enforce the features in those covenants.
Staff feels, however, that this does indicate a desire on the part of the applicant to ensure a quality
of development that is above average. In particular, requirements such as screening of parking
through the use of depressed grades or landscaping, screening of loading areas, maintenance of
landscaping and prompt replacement of damaged plant materials, lighting that is "compatible and
harmonious throughout the entire development," and signs that are "uniform and consistent with the
overall development of the property" all indicate a concern over appearance.
DeGrange, REZ 4006-96
Page 10
January 7, 1997
Summary:
The impact model indicates that the proposed rezoning would have a significant positive fiscal
impact. The request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Round Hill
Land Use Plan. Staff feels that the applicant has attempted to address all the issues that were raised
by staff and/or the Commission that could reasonably be addressed in the time permitted. There are
numerous details that remain to be worked out concerning the timing and adequacy of various traffic
improvements, funding, construction and location of a sewer extension and details concerning the
content and enforcement of covenants. These types of details are customarily worked out with the
various agencies as the development process proceeds. The real question at this point is whether the
County is comfortable that the impacts that are projected are accurate, and if so, whether the
measures that the applicant has offered for the mitigation of those impacts are adequate. Staff feels
the two most significant impacts concern traffic and appearance. At this point, we feel the applicant
has provided adequate information and assurances to indicate that they will address these impacts
appropriately.
Staff Recommendation:
The information provided indicates that the impacts associated with the requested rezoning have
been adequately addressed.
gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc.
INCORPORATED 1972
Engineers Land Planners Surveyors Water Quality Analyses
Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • P. 0. Box 781 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 a (540) 898-2115
Winchester Office: 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, VA 22601 • (540) 667-2139
8 January 1997
Mr. Kelly Downs
Virginia Department of Transportation ga
P.O. Box 2249
Staunton, Virginia 24401
RE: deGrange
Frederick County, Va.
Dear Kelly,
I've attached the designs for those signals directly affected by the deGrange rezoning
proposal. The designs are based on the full build out, p.m. peak volumes estimated by our
original study. All of the intersections have a cycle time of 70 seconds and operate at a C or B
level of service.
The lane configurations suggested in the original study remain unchanged but for the
eastern Route 37 signal. As you know, this intersection, with the traffic destined for the
deGrange site making a left turn onto U.S. Route 50, is the most difficult. With the original
proposed geometry, of one left turn and one right turn lane for the exit ramp traffic, a 120
second cycle time was required to get an acceptable level of service. In order to make
sequencing easier, we wanted all the signals to have approximately the same cycle lengths.
To do this, we needed to add a second left turn lane for the northbound 37 off ramp traffic.
In addition to the left turn lane currently being constructed, an additional 200 ft. lane and 200
ft. taper would be proposed.
If during your review of our design, you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Regards,
gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.
Jad . Mislowsky, P.E., ice President,
RAM/kf
Enclosure syr ."
CC.- Kris Tierney
xkBOARD OF DIRECTORS
C
Thomas J. O'Toole, P. E. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P. E. Earl R. Sutherland, P, E.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDIN13URG RESIDENCY
DAVID SSR. ONR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
COMMISSIONER P.O. BOX Z78
EDINBURG. VA 22824-0278
August 2,19$e 6
Comments for deGrange Estate
WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P.E.
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TELE ;540) 984-5600
FAX 1540) 964.5607
We have no overall objections to the rezoning of this property. However, its
development could have a significant traffic impact on Route 50 and the adjacent
Route 37 interchange area. Traffic generated by the development could necessitate
the need for improvements to the existing roadway system which could include but not
be limited to turn lanes and traffic signal installation and/or adjustments. Also due to
anticipated traffic volumes generated from the property, existing traffic counts on
Route 50, adjacent development (both existing and proposed), the existing Ward
Avenue (Route 1317) intersection, and proximity of the adjacent signalized Route 37
romps, access to this property may be restricted to certain controlled location(s). The
owner should also be aware access to this property could be affected by the
proposed Route 37 interchange to the north being planned by the Winchester Medical
Center and resulting impacts from the exisitng Route 50 interchange.
Before making any final comments this office will require a complete set of
construction site plans which detail entrance designs, roadway geometrics (if
applicable), drainage calculations, and a traffic impact analysis for review,
Signed: �.� for W. H. Bushman Dated: 08/02/96
10•_11: 98 09:11 7 ',0 $78 1719 FRED CO FI.' CSC
COUNTY OF FREDERICK VIRGI
FARE AND RESCUE DUAM
107 North Kcnt
Wiaehestei, VA-
Tbom= W. oweas - Douglas A. TCcr
Director Fre Mz
October 12, 2996 -
- To: ;Steve: Gyurisin, G.W. CUfford and Associates
Fmm:' Douglas A. Imcofe, Fire Marsshai, Frederick C04
---Reft DeGraaDe-Re-zoning
On October I0,1996, I met with the Board ofD*kedtors of the Round Mt Community_
Faze and Rescue Company, on the rc-zoWng request of the DeGrange property- The
Board had-questioais about the pIa fined use forthe property, and future re -zoning plans
for the area, as Thad anticipated, I informed them that no definite plans -have been
submitted for the property; but reviewed the allowed uses that could be built on the
:'. pmpercy, mJect to the re -zoning being approved.
The Board of Duzctors bas called a special- meeting of the Board, for Monday night,
October 14, . 1996, to discuss the re zoning request, the Fire and Rescue proffers, and to
formulate their position on this matter. As I shared with you yesterday, there is eoncem +
- on tine p=r of the Fire Company, about service delivery in the. future, to -this area_ and
how the needs ofthe Fire -and Rescue Comgames will be mei.
The Board said they would have comments to me on this, first thing. Tuesday momi#,
and I wM forward them to you as soon as I r=ive -them -
Let me bmow if I can be of further assistance on this application-
cc: Elwood Patterson, President Round HIH--Fire and Rescue
Evatr Wyk Planner _
Thomas W. Owens
Director
October 16, 199
To: Chris Tierra
From: Douglas
Ref DeGrange
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Douglas A. Kiracofe
Fire Marshal
Yesterday afternoon, I spoke to Elwood Patterson, President of the Round Hill Fire and
Rescue Company, regarding the re -zoning of the DeGrange property on Rt. 50 West. He
informed me that the Board of Directors of the Fire Company met on Monday night to
discuss the re -zoning and the monies proffered to the Fire and Rescue Company. Mr.
Patterson said that the company has no complaints or problems with the re -zoning, nor
the amount of money proffered for capital improvement costs, associated with the
proposed development of this area. He did say that the Board of Directors, wishes to be
on record questioning the adequacy of the computer model, being used by the County, to
figure the costs associated with future development. I informed him that this will most
likely be looked at again, in the near future, as other Fire and Rescue Companies have
expressed the same concern.
Mr. Patterson said that some of his collegues will be meeting with members of the
DeGrange family, regarding the possible donation of land, for a future Fire and Rescue
station. This request is going to be made outside of any re -zoning or proffer requests.
The Board is very concerned about the availability of land for such a station, once an area
begins developing. They are going to attempt to address this future need, by way of a
donation, or commitment, so the needed land is assured, as development takes place.
Mr. Patterson authorized me to convey their approval, of this re -zoning request, by way
of this memo. Should you need anything more from me, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
cc: Elwood Patterson, President Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue, Co. 15
DeGrange file
Director (5-0) 66-; n i S Fire Nisrsnal (541)' - q
Silver Lake
Properties, Inc.
WWW, L.C.
Rt. 50W
VDOT
Rt. 803
1♦
�s
Candy
Hill
Rezoning #006-96
H. Clay Degrange
Estate
Urban Development Area
UDA
MMM.M Sewer and Water Service Area
SWSA
Degrange Estate
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK CouNTy, VERGE4TA
The following informadfon 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, 147 North Kent Street, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: Gilbert W Clifford, R egInc. Telephone: 4
027,667-7139
Address: 200 N. Cameron Street
W'
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name: A. Clay DeGranze Estate Telephone: -.34()-j63-7Z85
U/0 First Union National Bank
Address: P. 0. Box 14061, VA 7520
RoanokeVir inia 24038-406
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: Stephen M. G ri in Telephone:540-667-2139667-2139
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map `X Agency Comments
PIat
Deed to property--� Fees
X Impact Analysis Statement
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X
10/9/96
1=
S. The Code of Via 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:
c/o First Union National Bank
6. Current Use of the Property: __Vacant/Agricultural
7. Adjoining Property:
53(A)1&2
AA&B 69
53(A)73, 74, 75,76,77
53(A)83, 84
53(B)1,2,3,4,3,6,7 8
129/149(1)1,2,3
I
Vacant/Ag.
Vacant/Ag.
Residential
Res./Comm.
Res./Comm.
Commercial
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
Northwest quadrant of the intersection of US. Route 50 West
and Route 37.
iZ i0/ Q /Q6
Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities impact Model
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the
applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the
planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning
District as described on Page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel IdentificationtLocation: Parcel Identification Number 53—A-68
Magisterial: Gainesboro
Fire Service: Bound Bill
Rescue Service: Round Hill
High School: James Wood
Middle School: Frederick Count
Elementary School: Apple Pie
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning
proposed:
Number of 1jaits Pro,20ged
Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi-Familv:
Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms:
Suare FogtaszedPronosed U5es
Office: # Service Station:
Retail: Manufacturing:
Restaurant: Warehouse:
Other:
* Use Impact Model Allocations
1- 10/9/96
IZ Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfiilly 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) understandthat the sign issued when this application is submitted trust 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):
Aa>
Owner(s): .�;t d.t� 2.G,
%t-
1 -:
Date:
Date:
Date: /c 6
Date:
OCT -10-96 17:26 FROM:CMC RE I0:540 SF 7667 PACE
of Jirginia -
Capitat Management Group Real Estate
P. O. Box 14061 VA -7520
Roanoke, Virginta 24033-4061
540 553-6640
FON'
October 10, 1996
14Ir. Kris Tierney
Planning Director
Frederick County Planning Department
197 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA M601
RE: H. Clay DeGran;e Tr= Rezoning Application
Dear W. Tierney -
First Union National Bank is Trustee for the H. Clay DeGrange Estate which includes the 102 Acre
parcel located on Route 50 WesL It is our desire to have this property rezoned to Business General - B2
zoning.
First Union has commissioned Gilbert W. CIifford & Associates to represent us in matters pertaining to
the rezoning request.
Sincerely,
Linda W. Wade. GRI. CPA
Vice President
Adjoining Property Owners
Rezoning
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property
abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public
right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The
applicant is required to obtain the followinginformation on each adjoining property including the
parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of
Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County
Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street.
Name and Property Identification Number I Address
Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. P.O. Box 2368
Prooerry # 53—A-1 Winchester, Va 22604
Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc.
PronerN # 53—A-2
Name Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc.
Prooerry # 53—A—A
Name Page F. & Elva Huffman
Pronerry # 53—A-73
Name Bernard & Carolyn R. Turner
Prooerry T 53—A-74
Name Nancv Renner Johnson
ProoerTv 1 53—A-75
Name ert B. Johnson
Property= 53—A-76
Name Pail f & la a E Renner
Prooem T 53—A-77
Name Farmers Livestock Exchange
Prooern = 53—A-83
Name Lvnn W. Anderson
Prone—, = 53—A-84
P.O. Box 2368
Winchester, Virginia 22604
P.O. Box 2368
Winchester, Virginia 22604
194 Echo Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22601
2578 Northwest Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22603
2054 Northwest Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22603
j 2054 Northwest Pike II
I Winchester, Virginia 22603
118 Echo Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22603
Box 2696
Winchester, Virginia 22603
1983 Northwest Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22603
Name and Property Identification Number
Address
Name Farmers Livestock
Exchange
Prooerry # 53B-3-1
P.O. Box 2969
Winchester, Virginia
226G4
Name Farmers Livestock
Exchange
P.O. Box 2969
Prooem # 53B-3-2
Winchester, Virginia
22604
Name Farmers Livestock
Exchange
P.O. Box 2969
Pmnert+# 53B-3-3
Winchester, Virginia
22604
Name Farmers Livestock
Exchange
P.O. Box 2969
' Proverry # 53B-3-4
Winchester, Virginia
22604
Name Kathleen Bugher
c/o Tortuga Restaurant
Prooerry #2051
53B-3-5
Northwest Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22603
Name Kathleen Bucher
c/o Tortuga Restaurant
Proverry 92051
53B-3-6
Northwest Pike
Winchester, Virginia
22603
Name La Ban R. & Boleyn
Hodgson
2061 Northwest Pike
Prooerry Al 53B-3-7
Winchester, Virginia
22603
Name Not Listed
Not Listed
Proverty # 53B-3-8
Name Fruit Hill Orchard
Inc.
P.O. 2368
Proverty # 129-1-1
Winchester, Virginia
22604
Name Winchester Medical
Cent r Inc
P.O. Box 3340
Proverry # 149-3-1
c/o P. Farley
Winchester, Virvinia
22604
Name Winchester Medical
Center. Inc.
P.O. Box 3340
Proverry # 144_3_?
c/o. P. Farley
Winchester, Virginia
22604
Name T . T ,� r
P.O. Box 3340
Prooerty # 149-3-3
c/o P. Farley
Winchester. Virginia
22604
Name
Pronem
Name
Prooem j
10,9",C,6
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
IMPACT COMPONENT DETAILS
AND PROFFER
FOR
REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF THE
H. CLAY deGRANGE ESTATE
PROPERTY
Gainesboro Magisterial District
August, 1996 • Impact Analysis Statement
December, 1996 • Additional Rezoning Components
FREDERICK CENTER
gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc.
200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139 • Fax: 540-665-0493
150C Olde Greenwich Drive • Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
540-898-2115
Frederick
Center
Frederick Center Impact Component Details & Proffer
Table of Contents
Introduction
Proffer Statement
Traffic Study
Aesthetics and Landscaping Design Features
Covenants and Restrictions
Introduction
Frederick Center Impact Component Details & Proffer
INTRODUCTION
The following materials are presented following a public hearing with the Frederick
County Planning Commission to detail various components of the referenced
rezoning request for the H. Clay deGrange estate. . Also, a
proffer statement is provided including up-to-date proffered items for approval of
the requested rezoning.
Materials presented herein are designed to answer questionsrG-retest during the
public hearing process and to clarify any concerns discussed with the planning staff
following. Four areas are outlined and detailed as follows:
1. Proffer statement
2. Traffic study and analysis
3. Aesthetic and landscape design features
4. Covenant and Restriction considerations
The following additional information has been prepared for the H. Clay deGrange
estate property under trust with the First Union National Bank. The property
consists of 102 acres, of which, 51.0540 acres are requested for Business General or B-2
zoning. The entire property is currently zoned Rural Area (RA). The project is
known as and referred to herein as "Frederick Center", since the property to be
rezoned is located near the geographic center of Frederick County, at the intersection
of US Route 50 West and VA Route 37. The Impact Analysis Statement for
Frederick Center was prepared as required by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. A.... ositive.. fiscal. impact is
projected.,
The property currently zoned Rural Area (RA) is proposed to be zoned Business
General (B-2). The site is highly visible from both US Route 50 and VA Route 37.
The Concept Plan attached to this report and also made part of the proffer for
rezoning 51.0540 acres of the property includes a retail commercial center and office
development area within the proposed B-2, Business General zoned area. A
landscaped green strip is planned along US Route 50 with a central green visual link
planned along VA Route 37. There..are no residential units.. proposed as part of this
..........................................................
rezoning.;
................
The development includes two controlled access points with no direct access to US
Route 50 from individual commercial users. A central access road traverses the
property from north to south connecting to US Route 50, and interparcel connectors
are provided to adjoining properties to the west should development occur west of
the site. The primary access is controlled via a traffic signal located at the Ward
Frederick Center
Impact Component Details & Proffer
Avenue crossover with a secondary access provided for traffic entering the site only,
an ingress only entrance. Street impro„yements .are rec m ded..an d to
o men d..P.m ere
maintain the flow of traffic on U5 Route 50 and maintain the integrity of the
............................................................................................................................................................................
intersection„with„Route., ?„as outlined„in„thg, fo1lQwing, traffic..study. ;
Community„and„gounty„-wide,.plgnn ng-and„planning„policies„recognize this area as
.................
an area suitable for development;, Frederick Center is located within the Urban
...................... .
Development Area (UDA), the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is
identified as an Interchange Business Area in the Frederick County Comprehensive
Plan. It is part of the Round Hill Community designated for development.
Analysis of environmental and physical characteristics of this property to be rezoned
indicate that there is opportunity for development as envisioned by local policies
and laws in place to protect special components of the natural systems. Thug ..are„no
known environmental features that limit developrnent,of,the„ ro er
......................................................... .Kgp......�:.
Assuming full development of the 51.0540 acres rezoned to B-2, Business General
and assuming an average development factor of approximately 10,000 square feet
per acre, approximately 500,000 square feet of office/ commercial space may be
developed. Full build out would generate approximately 1,250 new jobs with
additional jobs provided short-term during the project construction stages.
Revenues in the form of real property taxes, the local share of retail sales taxes,
personal property taxes and business license fees are accounted for in the
Development Impact Model provided by the Frederick County Planning Office. The
net fiscal impact credit for this project as modeled is estimated between nine and
twenty-eight million dollars depending upon final development configuration.
There, is„a pos tiv„e .fiscal, impact ,associated..with..thia. rgzoning. from RA, to„B; 2..
Public water and sewer are available to the property. Currently a 12” water line
serves the property. Sewer service is available from areas both north, south and east
of the property. Currently the most cost effective alternative is under study for
delivery of sewer service. Natural gas and electrical service are available to the
property. Underground -utilities„will„be. used, zn,new„areas of„development on „the
property;.
I2,1(I ;OQ ,is proffered ... tQ„offset„the„impact„of ... c ievelc?pment„for.,the Round..Hill Fire
and Rescue Company„as identified by the impact model
Frederick Center
Impact Component Details & Proffer
The rezoning and development plan fit within the guidelines of present planning
policy for this visible intersection. In summary;
• The property is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) shown the Comprehensive Plan.
• The Round Hill Ce��r'P„ ter Plan identifies the property as
designated for development. 2-
• The property is located at a strategic Interchange Business Area as shown
in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Interparcel connectors are provided as shown in the Round Hill L.,,'
Plan.
• 51.0540 acres of Business General, B-2 zoning is proposed with no
residential.
• Public utilities are available.
• There are no environmental or historic impacts.
• There are positive fiscal impacts.
• Major transportation improvements are proposed as part of the
development plan.
• Landscaped greenways and landscaped strips are proposed in addition to
the required landscaped and open space requirements of typical B-2
developments.
Proffer
Statement
Frederick Center Impact Component Details & Proffer
PROFFER
The proffer statement for rezoning 51.0540 acres of the H. Clay deGrange property
from RA to B2 for the Frederick Center commercial development is revised as
follows:
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
H. CLAY deGRANGE ESTATE
December 24,1996
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
Property Identification Number 53-((A))-68
H. CLAY deGRANGE ESTATE
"Frederick Center"
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 et. sec., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with
respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that
in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall
approve Rezoning Application #006-96 for the rezoning of 50.0540 acres from
Rural Area (RA) Zoning District to the Business General (B-2) Zoning district,
development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the
terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and
conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such
be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with
Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these
proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These
proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or
assigns.
General Development Plan
The development of the subject property, and the submission of any
Master Development Plan shall be in substantial conformity with the Concept
Plan, dated December 1996 and the Street Improvement plan, dated December
1996 both which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
H. CLAY deGRANGE ESTATE
December 24,1996
Street Improvements
The Applicant shall design and construct all roads on the subject
property consistent with the County's adopted Round Hill Land Use Plan for
the area, and according to uniform standards established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT), and as may be provided in these
proffers as illustrated on the Street Improvement plan dated December 1996
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
• On U.S. Route 50 at the intersection of Route 1317, a 200 ft. left turn
lane for eastbound traffic will be provided. (#1)
• On U.S. Route 50, an acceleration/ deceleration lane will be added
across the entire U.S.Route 50 frontage of the site, and the only exit on
U. S. Route 50 will be located at the Route 1317 intersection. Curb and
gutter will be provided along the entire frontage. (#2)
• At the VA Route 1317 intersection, traffic leaving the site will be
provided two left turn lanes, one thru and one right turn lane. (#3)
• Lanes will be added to the VA Route 37 exit ramps to allow dedicated
right and left turn lanes (#4) as follows:
At U.S. Route 50/VA Route 37 western signal
Southbound right turn - 200 ft.
• A traffic signal will be provided at U.S. Route 50 and VA Route 1317
intersection. (#5)
• A 200 ft. left turn lane will be provided on U.S. Route 50 for the
eastbound traffic at the US Route 50/1V7 ; Route 37 eastern signal. (#6)
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
K CLAY deGRANGE ESTATE
December 24,1996
Land ca e Design Fea ur
The development of the subject property, and the submission of any
Master Development Plan shal - 'th
include the
following landscape design features provided in these proffers and as
illustrated on the Concept Plan dated December 1996 which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
• A thirty foot (30') landscaped green strip along the US Route 50 frontage
portion of the site. (#1)
• A landscaped green area along the north side of the main entrance. (#2)
• A landscaped, open, green visual focal link without structures with the US
Route 50 and 37 interchange area. (#3)
• A central open space area, currently shown as deGrange Park, planned as
part of the area rising in the west portion of the property. (#4)
Covenants and Restrictions
The Applicant shall provide Frederick County with a complete set of
covenants and restrictions in substantial conformance with the protective
covenants and restrictions provided in the "Impact Component Details and
Proffer" report of December 1996 at the time of subdivision governing design
and maintenance as -require 8 =rho eek €fes ks-artd
xks_.of-the-Frederic_ e for review and approval by
Frederick County.
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
FL CLAY deGRANGE ESTATE
December 24,1996
Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Develo ment
The undersigned, who owns the above described property hereby
voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of
Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 50.0540 acre tract, lying on
the north side of U.S. Route 50 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District of
Frederick County, Virginia from RA to B-2, the undersigned will pay to
Frederick County for the Round Hill Fire and Rescue Company the sum of
$12,161.11 at the time the first building permit is issued.
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs,
executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant
and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said
rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to
the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick
County Code.
Respectfully submitted,
PROPERTY OWNER:
Date:
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day
of 1997, by
Estate.
My Commission expires
Notary Public
of the H. Clay deGrange
J�'' �� `•���1,, i ` (�(� \�v(/J���, '�� ��� 1� F /7`1 _��'1D>�'��at] ! 400 \
-15rrJppic Scale �h Feet
i (_ _
. ;' !=•-.� 1 / /`" ` � � �� __ f/. � - / = '� = may. � �, t�.`
NN
�.. ,, ; , •`:� , , -� �. �� moo, -� � ; _�, ��r� � -� � , \
\0
10
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1. On U.S. Rout
e 50, a left turn lane for eastbound
traffic � '.;.^
will be provided;
2. On U.S. Route 50, an acceleration/deceleration lane
will be added across the entire Route 50 frontage
of the site, and the only exit placed at the Route rte% ` i// ;'� �` ' �;'%"�
1317 intersection. Curb and utter will be u` `�
g provided `�
along the entire frontage;
At the VA Route 1317 intersection, two left turn
lanes, and
beprovided;thru lane a one right turn lane will /j�s� i'75
�i�% = %%�� %� t �� / /%/7
i < J
4. Lanes will be added to the VA Route 37 exit ramps
to allow dedicated right and left turn lanes as
described in the trafficstud
Y"•�
\`V; � . �.�/
5. A traffic signal will be provided at U.S. 50 and VA `/! f- %'��,'�� �`° �� ; J 7 °
Route 1317; by /moi--%--
%
x11'-
6. Eastbound U.S. Route 50 stacking lane for left turn
at eastern signal light. �i f ° �j� `"N
°
(Currently VDOT improvements are underway for
the north bound exit
widening and improvin ramp _ _ _-
of VA
lanes Route 37)
n
Impact
Analysis
for
Rezoning
the
DeGrange
Property
Street
Improvements
The DeGrange property
located in the northwest
quadrant of the
intersection of
US Route 50 West &
Route 37, consists of
102.0216 acres
zoned Rural Area (RA).
51 acres
are requested for
Business General (82) zoning.
The DeGrange property
is located in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District of
Frederick County, Virginia.
December, 1996
NI61�
oil
gilb ert w. cliff ord
& associates, inc.
Engineers • land Planners • Surveyors
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139 Fcx 540—^57—•1.3
1
�--
�
1 ._`fir•%,� 4�
o
IQ
\ 1�
11
moo. o _ten ♦♦
n hjaz
AREA TO BE REZONED FROM RA TO B-2 JON—
51.0540 ACRES
LANDSCAPE DESIGN FEATURES
1. A thirty foot (30') landscaped green strip along the Route 50
frontage protion of the site.
2. A landscaped green area along the north side of the main
entrance.
3. A landscaped, open, green visual focal link with the 50 and 37
interchange area.
4. A central open space area, currently shown as Degrange Park,
planned as part of the area rising in the west portion of the
property.
0 250 500 1000
Graphic Scale in Feet
1 "=500'
Impact
Analysis
for
Rezoning
the
DeGrange
Property
Concept
Plan
The DeGrange property,
located in the northwest
quadrant of the
intersection of
US Route 50 West &
Route 37, consists of
102.0216 acres
zoned Rural Area (RA).
51 acres
are requested for
Business General (62) zoning.
The DeGrange property
is located in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District of
Frederick County, Virginia.
December, 1996
gilbert w. clifford
& associates, inc.
Engineers • Land Planners • Surveyors
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139 Fax 540-667-0493
a
�
/
o
\ 1�
11
moo. o _ten ♦♦
n hjaz
AREA TO BE REZONED FROM RA TO B-2 JON—
51.0540 ACRES
LANDSCAPE DESIGN FEATURES
1. A thirty foot (30') landscaped green strip along the Route 50
frontage protion of the site.
2. A landscaped green area along the north side of the main
entrance.
3. A landscaped, open, green visual focal link with the 50 and 37
interchange area.
4. A central open space area, currently shown as Degrange Park,
planned as part of the area rising in the west portion of the
property.
0 250 500 1000
Graphic Scale in Feet
1 "=500'
Impact
Analysis
for
Rezoning
the
DeGrange
Property
Concept
Plan
The DeGrange property,
located in the northwest
quadrant of the
intersection of
US Route 50 West &
Route 37, consists of
102.0216 acres
zoned Rural Area (RA).
51 acres
are requested for
Business General (62) zoning.
The DeGrange property
is located in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District of
Frederick County, Virginia.
December, 1996
gilbert w. clifford
& associates, inc.
Engineers • Land Planners • Surveyors
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139 Fax 540-667-0493
Traffic Study
Frederick Center Impact Component Details & Proffer
TRAFFIC STUDY
The traffic study and analysis was conducted in November 1996 and recommends
street improvements which are included in the proffer statement for rezoning
50.0540 acres to B-2 of the H. Clay deGrange estate. The Traffic Impact Analysis
follows:
deGRANGE REZONING
"Frederick Center"
US Route 50
Frederick County, Virginia
Traffic Iml2act Analysis
December 1996
An application is filed for rezoning of a 51.0540 acre tract of land from RA
(Rural Area) to B2 (Business General) at the northwest corner of the US Route 50
and VA Route 37 interchange. The site has frontage on approximately 900 ft. along
U.S. Route 50 extending from VA Route 37 to VA Route 1317. The site is
envisioned to be fully developed with a variety of commercial land uses.
Commercial, retail, medical, and office uses are currently located in this interchange
area. The Farmers Livestock Exchange is located directly to the south across U.S.
Route 50, the Tortuga Restaurant lies to the southwest across VA Route 1317, a fast
food/gas station facility known as Hardee's-Mobil Convenience Center has been
approved at the southeast corner of the U.S. Route 50 and VA Route 1317
intersection. In addition, there is a McDonalds restaurant at the southeast corner
and the Winchester Medical Center facility at the northeast corner of the U.S. Route
50 and VA Route 37 interchange.
The main access to the Frederick Center development will be at the U.S.
Route 50 and VA Route 1317 (Ward Avenue) intersection. A driveway aligned with
Route 1317 will extend into and traverse the site. The current intersection
configuration, a "T," with two lanes both east and west bound on U.S. Route 50, and
two lanes, one south and one north bound on VA Route 1317, appears to operate
satisfactorily. There is anecdotal evidence of delays at the intersection, primarily
caused by the larger car -camper combinations turning from the westbound lane of
U.S. Route 50 onto southbound VA Route 1317 towards the Candy Hill
Campground located at the southern terminus of VA Route 1317. As no turn lane
is provided, the longer campers, or the queue of waiting vehicles stack back (east)
onto the U.S. Route 50 westbound through lane. A site plan of this intersection was
recently completed for the fast food/gas station facility (Hardees/Mobil) planned for
construction on the southeast corner of U.S. Route 50 and VA Route 1317. This
plan incorporates the following improvements:
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
• Improve and realign the U.S. Route 50 crossover for the VA Route 1317
intersection.
• An east bound right turn lane on U.S. Route 50 in advance of the
intersection of VA Route 1317.
• A left turn lane on U.S. Route 50 for west bound traffic in advance of the
VA Route 1317 intersection.
• Increase radius and right-of-way at the intersection of VA Route 1317
and U.S. Route 50 including a four lane entrance road with two center
turn lanes.
Frederick Center will increase the vehicle trips at the U.S. Route 50/VA
Route 1317 intersection and at the U.S. Route 50/VA Route 37 interchanges which
lies 800± feet to the east. In order to determine the consequence of these trips, the
Frederick County Planning Commission is requesting Gilbert W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc. (Clifford) to examine the existing and proposed conditions at the
intersection with regard to the Frederick Center development by examining the
following:
1. Determine the existing traffic volumes at each of the
affected intersections;
2. Estimate the trips generated by the full development;
3. Apply these trips to the proposed intersection geometries;
and
4. Determine proposed level of service.
Vehicle count information was taken by Clifford in November 1996 at the VA
Route 37/U.S. Route 50 interchange. The volumes at the VA Route 1317/U.S.
Route 50 intersection as predicted for the Hardees/Mobil project as studied were
assumed to be existing. Peak traffic is from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. A copy of the counted
traffic data at VA Route 37 is shown on Attachment #1. The hourly summation is
shown on Attachment #2.
The impact of the development is estimated by determining the peak hour
trips generated by the new development (Frederick Center), and adding these trips to
the existing volumes. A conservative origination assumption is, therefore, made
that 73% of the trips to the development are from the east, 2% from VA Route 1317
and the remainder from the west It was also assume& that rips rf om VA Route 37
would be generated in proportion to the volume and directions at which they
currently arrive at the interchange.
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc_
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
deGrange Rezoning Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
Trip rates provided by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual were also employed. The detailed breakdown of the new trip volumes and
their movements isprovided on Attachment #4; 1,936 trips are generated during
the p.m. peak hour; 885 entering and71051-e le-----
ring the site.
As mentioned, the Generalized Development Plan or Concept Plan is
currently under review as part of the rezoning application and indicates that the
owners of the Frederick Center development have attempted to address the needs of
the expected traffic volumes. The street improvements detailed on the plans and in
the proffers are as follows:
1. On U.S. Route 50, a 200 ft. left turn lane for eastbound traffic
will be provided; a-� )'Y
2. On U.S. Route 50, an acceleration/ deceleration lane will be
added across the entire Route 50 frontage of the site, and the
only exit from Frederick Center will be located at the Route
1317 intersection. Curb and gutter will be provided along
the entire frontage;
3. At the VA Route 1317 intersection, traffic leaving the site
will be provided two left turn lanes, one thru lane and one
right turn lane;
4. Lanes will be added to the VA Route 37 exit ramps to allow
dedicated right and left turn lanes as follows:
*At U.S. Route 50/VA Route 37 eastern signal
Eastbound left turn - 250 ft.
Northbound left turn - 400 ft.
At U.S. Route 50/VA Route 37 western signal
Southbound right turn - 200 ft.
*(Currently VDOT improvements are underway for
widening and improving the north bound exit ramp lanes
of VA Route 37 at the eastern signal and the eastbound
lane. These are not included as a proffered item since they
are currently underway).
5. A traffic signal will be provided at U.S. Route 50 and VA
Route 1317;
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
6. A 200 ft. left turn lane will be provided for the eastbound
traffic at the U.S. Route 50/VA Route 37 eastern signal.
The calculations distributing the trips, and the resulting intersection
movement volumes are provided on Attachment #5. The peak hour remains 4:30
to 5:50 p.m. The hourly volume through the VA Route 1317 intersection is 3,365.
The volume through the western VA Route 37 intersection is 3,875, and through
the east intersection is 3,414.
The Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209 Planning Methodology for
Signalized Intersections was employed to determine the capacity of the intersection
with the development. The Peak Hour Factor was assumed to be 0.95. Permitted
left turns were only allowed for the southbound left at VA Route 1317 and the east
and west bound left turns from U.S. Route 50 to VA Route 37. The calculations
indicate that:
1. The U.S. Route 50/VA 1317 intersection will operate under
capacity;
2. The western U.S. Route 50/VA Route 37 intersection will also
operate under capacity; and
3. The eastern Route 50/37 intersection will operate near capacity.
An analysis of the arrival trips for the affected movements at U.S. Route
50/VA Route 37 intersection has been performed. The timing sequence used by the
SP209 Planning Methodology was used. The length of stacking lanes required at
each movement has been determined. The analysis confirms that the stacking lane
lengths offered by the proffers and described previously are adequate.
Development of commercial uses on the deGrange property to be rezoned
will increase traffic on U.S. Route 50 and VA Route 37. While improvements
cannot make the traffic disappear, they can mitigate its impact somewhat. Stacking
lane improvements proposed will allow the current and full development volumes
to move at a reasonable rate of speed, and allow for signal designs which operate at
an acceptable level of service.
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
�� 400
Sccl Feet
-_fes ` j ,\ �. � . \ `\ � {� / / _. O � �o \,. '�^ � _ / � 1 • �
0(
' S
,\ � -'� , __ _, ' ��� • \ � ,ice --- � , � � `,
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1. On U.S. Route 50, a left turn lane for eastbound
traffic will \
be provided; 1;.,� J \, .� � \��\•.`•' j
2. On U.S. Route 50, an acceleration/deceleration lane
will be added across the entire Route 50 fronts e �y" / /
of the site, and g /
the only exit placed at the Route :5,
1317 '1'` ' -
intersection. Curb and utter will be provided
along the entire frontage;g p
3. At the VA Route 1317 intersection, two left turn `•- - `��
lanes, one th
ru one right t
lane and ourn lane will
be provided; /
4. Lanes will be added to the VA Route 37 exit ram sA��y/�/
to allow dedicated right and left turn lanes as �!'/�%�
described int study;����
he traffic:%%-�,-i-"• �,�-��/!�-\ \ ,- 1 �(�• ;
5. A traffic signal will be provided at U.S. 50 and VA'\ J
Route 1317
'•-
6. Eastbound U.S. Route 50 � �i��� ' 4 � ,' l ✓" � � � � \ � r-- `��
stacking lane for left turnat eastern signal light._��
(Currently VDOT improvements are underway for_.� /� / I �_ /� _ i � _ ~' " �__/ �j/���`" ''�- 'I s�• • . �� \ � �o\
\ �
widening and improvin the north bound exit ramp - - 'Q' ^✓� ��,'" �^
lanes of VA Ro 37�
Impact
Analysis
for
Rezoning
the
DeGrange
Property
Street
Improvements
The DeGrange property
located in the northwest
quadrant of the
intersection of
US Route 50 West &
Route 37, consists of
102.0216 acres
zoned Rural Area (RA).
51 acres
are requested for
Business General (B2) zoning.
The DeGrange property
is located in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District of
Frederick County, Virginia.
December, 1996
gilb ert w. Clifford
& associates, inc.
Engineers • Land Planners • Surveyors
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139 Fax 540-567—,493
Stacking Lane Length Calculation
U.S. Route 50/VA Route 37 Eastern Signal
Volume
Green
Red
Eastbound Left Turn
vph veh/sec
sec
sec
336 0.093
26.6
93.8
Vehicles arriving during Red -
8.8
Vehicles arriving during Green -
2.5
Total -
11.2
Stacking Lane Required (ft) -
225
Volume
Green
Red
- Northbound Left Turn
vph veh/sec
sec
sec
507 0.141
44.9
75.1
Vehicles arriving during Red -
10.6
Vehicles arriving during Green -
6.3
Total -
16.9
Stacking Lane Required (ft) -
338
U.S. Route 50NA Route 37 Western Signal
Volume
Green
Red
Southbound Right Turn
vph veh/sec
sec
sec
520 0.144
25.7
34.3
Vehicles arriving during Red -
5.0
Vehicles arriving during Green -
3.7
Total -
8.7
Stacking Lane Required (ft) -
173
U.S. Route-50NA
Route 1317
Signal
Volume
Green
Red
Eastbound Left Turn
vph veh/sec
sec
sec
221 0.061
35.4
24.6
Vehicles arriving during Red -
1.5
Vehicles arriving during Green -
2.2
Total -
3.7
Stacking Lane Required (ft) -
74
DeGrange Traffic Impact Study
Figure #1
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
deGrange, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
Attachment 1
Traffic Counts
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
Project Name: Degrange Location: Fred Cty, VA WEST INTX
Intersection: U.S. Rte 50NA Rte 37Southbound Off Ramp Date: Weekday, 11/22/96
Silbert w. Clifford and associares
Revision 1.0 - 3 Cec '996
VA Rte 37/ US Rte 50 Intersection
Current Weekday Volumes
'.'VEST INTX
Attachment #r1
Traffic From
North
Traffic From East
Traffic From West
on VA
Rte 37 (ramp)
on US
Rte 50
on US
Rte 50
Left
Right
Total
Left
Thru
Total
Thru
Right
Total
Total
Time
Period
Time Period
7:00
- 7:15
40
12
52
7
32
39
120
17
137
228
7:00
7:15
7:15
- 7:30
35
29
64
7
57
64
127
29
156
284
7:15
7:30
7:30
- 7:45
65
61
126
28
71
99
232
77
309
534
7:30
7:45
7:45
- 8:00
90
43
133
25
87
112
243
55
298
543
7:45
8:00
8:00
- 8:15
103
50
153
37
110
147
167
65
232
532
8:00
- 8:15
8:15
- 8:30
75
37
112
38
82
120
172
58
230
462
8:15
- 8:30
8:30
- 8:45
75
27
102
28
65
93
148
49
197
392
8:30
- 8:45
8:45
- 9:00
62
30
92
24
60
84
132
52
184
360
8:45
- 9:00
9:00
- 9:15
48
28
76
22
63
85
125
38
163
324
9:00
- 9:15
9:15
- 9:30
44
35
79
28
66
94
110
42
152
325
9:15
- 9:30
9:30
- 9:45
40
33
73
24
65
89
84
40
124
286
9:30
- 9:45
9:45
- 10:00
42
25
67
26
73
99
85
47
132
298
9:45
- 10:00
10:00
- 10:15
38
26
64
25
79
1 104
88
41
129
297
10:00
- 10:15
10:15 -
10:30
29
25
54
21
79
100
90
32
122
276
10:15
- 10:30
10:30 -
10:45
29
33
62
22
90
112
84
43
127
301
10:30
- 10:45
10:45 -
11:00
25
25
50
26
88
114
88
23
111
275
10:45
- 11:00
11:00 -
11:15
38
37
75
30
91
121
91
29
120
316
11:00
- 11:15
11:15 -
11:30
36
30
66
38
105
143
100
47
147
356
11:15
- 11:30
11:30 -
11:45
25
32
57
44
99
143
96
34
130
330
11:30
- 11:45
11:45 -
12:00
30
27
57
37
105
142
88
40
128
327
11:45
- 12:00
12:00 -
12:15
38
37
75
35
104
139
93
36
129
343
12:00
- 12:15
12:15 -,
12:30
36
30
1
33
120
153
89
23
112
331
12:15
- 12:30
12:30 -
12:45
31
37
68
45
115
160
88
49
137
365
12:30
- 12:45
12:45 -
13:00
30
45
75
32
110
142
97
47
144
361
12:45
13:00
13:00 -
13:15
33
45
78
22
108
130
97
44
141
349
13:00
- 13:15
13:15 -
13:30
40
55
95
34
113
147
102
54 1
156
398
13:15
1130
13:30-
13:45
46
30
76
38
109
147
99
54
153
376
13:30
13:45
13:45 -
14:00
42
38
80
35
99
134
95
46
141
355
13:45 -
14:00
14:00 -
14:15
34
30
64
31
110
141
102
42
144
349
14:00 -
14:15
14:15 -
14:30
36
52
88
20
112
732
88
61
149
369
14:15 -
14:30
14:30 -
14:45
42
50
92
40
128
168
82
38
120
380
14:30 -
14:45
14:45 -
15:00
38
50
88
24
160
184
85
48
133
405
14:45 -
15:00
15:00 -
15:15
37
69
106
50
184
234
75
52
127
467
15:00
15:15
15:15 -
15:30
41
59
100
65
180
245
79
52
131
476
15:15
15:30
15:30 -
15:45
39
96
135
86
200
286
93
55
148
569
15:30 -
15:45
15:45 -
16:00
36
113
149
93
222
315
104
36
140
604
15:45 -
16:00
16:00 -
1615
33
73
106
81
242
323
93
27
120
549
16:00 -
16:15
16:15 -
16:30
35
70
105
95
238
333
94
39
133
571
16:15 -
16:30
16:30 -
16:45
40
83
123
103
251
354
103
39
142
619
16:30 -
16:-=5
16:45 -
17:00
43
93
136
49
249
298
121
36
157
591
16.45 -
17:00
17:00 -
17:15
39
87
126
60
246
306
108
41
149
581
17:00 -
17:15
17:15 -
17:30
33
95
128
62
294
356
116
71
187
671
17:15 -
17:30
17:30 -
17:45
25
90
115
57
215
272
114
56
170
557
17:30 -
17:45
17:45 -
18:00
27
79
106
31
186
217
109
53
162
485
17:45 -
18:00
Silbert w. Clifford and associares
Revision 1.0 - 3 Cec '996
VA Rte 37/ US Rte 50 Intersection
Current Weekday Volumes
'.'VEST INTX
Attachment #r1
gilberr w. cWord and associates
Revision '.0 - 3 Dec '996
VA Rte 37/ US Rte 50 Intersection
Current Weekday Volumes
EAST INTX
Attachment #1
"-""y' "�
Intersection: U.S. Rte 501VA Rte 37
Northbound Off Ramp
Location: Fred cty, VA
Date: Weekday,
EAST INTX
11/22/96
Traffic
From
South
Traffic
From
East
Traffic From
West
on VA Rte 37 (ramp)
on US Rte 50
on US
Rte 50
Left
Right
Total
Right
Thru
Total
Thru
Left
Total
Total
Time Period
7:00
- 7:15
18
75
12
21
33
Time
Period
7:15
- 7:30
22
_111
57
79
25
109
55
164
272
7:00
- 7:15
7:30
- 7:45
35
90
125
40
65
109
55
164
308
7:15
- 7:30
7:45
30
65
95
215
80
295
515
7:30
- 7:45
- 8:00
41
120
161
35
73
108
245
85
330
599
7:45
- 8:00
8:00
- 8:15
50
1 70
1 120
23
95
118
225
45
270
508
8:00
- 8:15
8:15
- 8:30
40
1 70-1
110
25
79
104
190
55
245
459
8:15
- 8:30
8:30
- 8:45
45
50
95
23
49
72
160
63
223
390
8:30
- 8:45
8:45
- 9:00
28
45
73
20
58
78
145
45
190
341
8:45
- 9:00
9:00
- 9:15
25
45
70
17
59
76
133
38
171
317
9:00
- 9.15
9:15
- 9:30
27
30
57
32
70
102
115
35
150
309
9:15
- 9:30
9:30
- 9:45
25
1 40
65
23
67
90
100
28
128
283
9:30
- 9:45
9:45
- 10:00
20
1 30
50
34
75
109
99
24
123
282
9:45 -
10:00
10:00
- 10:15
30
42
72
29
78
107
94
29
123
302
10:00 -
10:15
10:15
- 10:30
25
40
65
38
74
—T, —2
95
28
123
300
10:15 -
10:30
10:30
- 10:45
30
42
72
29
81
110
82
31
113
295
10:30 -
10:45
10:45
- 11:00
33
48
81
32
84
116
86
28
114
311
10:45 -
11:00
11:00
- 11:15
31
42
73
27
88
115
95
35
130
318
11:00 -
11:15
11:15
- 11:30
30
26
56
33
113
146
98
38
136
338
11:15 -
11:30
11:30
- 11:45
32
32
64
38
110
148
85
32
117
329
11:30 -
11:45
11:45
- 12:00
30
30
60
28
108
136
88
28 1
116
312
11:45 -
12:00
12:00
- 12:15
31
23
54
36
110
146
92
38
130
330
12:00 -
12:15
12:15
- 12:3042
36
78
41
113
154
95
29
124
356
12:15 -
12:30
12:30 -
12:45
38
37
75
41
121
162
92
27
119
356
12:30 -
12:45
12.45 -
13:00
33
34
67
31
112
143
95
28
123
333
12:45 -
13:00
13:00 -
13:15
39
42
81
26
88
114
98
29
127
322
13:00 -
13:15
13:15 -
13:30
30
35
65
19
119
138
105
35
140
343
13:15 -
13:30
13:30 -
13:45
37
47
i4--
16
108
124
110
30
140
348
13:30 -
13:45
13:45 -
14:00
35
27
62
33
98
131
108
29
137
330
13:45 -
14:00
14:00 -
14:15
37
18
55
27
102
129
105
27
132
316
14:00 -
14:15
14:15 -
14:30
33
38
71
28
97
125
92
32
124
320
14:15 -
14:30
14:30 -
14:45
47
53
100
44
121
165
88
36
124
389
14:30 -
14:45
14:45 -
15:00
48
36
84
53
135
188
85
38 1
123
395
14:45 -
15:00
15:00 -
15:15
40
21
61
42
190
232
75
33
108
401
15:00 -
15:15
15:15 -
15:30
67
20
87
33
178
211
80
40
120
418
15:15 -
15:30
15:30 -
15:45
85
52
137
62
199
261
87
45
132
530
15:30 -
15:45
15:45 -
16:00
99
77
176
57
216
273
99
44
143
592
15:45 -
16:0Q
16:00 -
16:15
118 1
64
182
53
202
255
85
41
126
563
16:00 -
16:15
16:15 -
16:30
112 1
44
156
54
222
276
90
39
129
561
16:15 -
16:30
16:30 -
16:45
93 1
16
109
64
259
323
98
45
143
575
16:30 -
16:45
16:45 -
17:00
102 1
36
138
64201
265
105
59
164
567
16:45 -
17:^
17:00 -
17:15
81
59
140
75
225
300
98
49
147
587
17:00 -
17:15
17:15 -
17:30
73
33
106
82
283
365
116
34
150
621
17:15 -
17:30
17:30 -
17:45
66
27
93
46
202 1
248
113
30
143
484
17:30 -
17:45
17:45 -
18:00
38
26
64
45
180 1
225
108 1
29
137
426
17:45 -
18:00
gilberr w. cWord and associates
Revision '.0 - 3 Dec '996
VA Rte 37/ US Rte 50 Intersection
Current Weekday Volumes
EAST INTX
Attachment #1
Counted totals adjusted to hourly volumes
Traffic From South Traffic From East
on VA Rte 37 (ramp) on US Rte 50
Left Right Total Right Thru Total
Time Period
7:00 - 8:00
7:15 - 8:15
7:30 - 8:30
7:45 - 8:45
8:00 - 9:00
8:15 - 9:15
8:30 - 9:30
8:45 - 9:45
9:00 - 10:00
9:15 - 10:15
9:30 - 10:30
9:45 - 10:45
10:00 - 11:00
10:15 - 11:15
10:30 - 11:30
10:45 - 11:45
11:00 - 12:00
11:15 - 12:15
11:30 - 12:30
11:45 - 12:45
12:00 - 13:00
12:15 - 13:15
12:30 - 13:30
12:45 - 13:45
13:00 - 14:00
13:15 - 14:15
13:30 - 14:30
13:45 - 14:45
14:00 - 15:00
14:15 - 15:15
14:30 - 15:30
14:45 - 15:45
15:00 - 16:00
15:15 - 16:15
15:30 - 16:30
15:45 - 16:45
16:00 - 17:00
16:15 - 17:15
16:30 - 17:30
16:45 - 17:45
17:00 - 18:00
EAST INTX
Traffic From West
on US Rte 50 Total
Thru Left Total N,S,E,W
911bert W. Clifford and associates
Revision ' 0 - 3 Dec -996
275
265
265
248
208
201
181
146
125
116
109
112
116
122
132
133
133
136
127
122
122
113
119
122
123
121
118
124
133
139
147
156
162
170
169
169
184
192
187
172
142
VA Rte371
953
1059
1140
1068
928
829
734
639
572
524
497
482
473
480
493
497
499
499
487
489
496
493
509
530
544
549
533
517
503
479
475
483
503
521
530
541
562
583
604
604
577
1694
1930
2081
1956
1698
1507
1357
1250
1191
1176
1167
1179
1208
1224
1262
1296
1297
1309
1327
1354
1375
1367
1354
1346
1343
1337
1314
1355
1420
1505
1603
1744
1941
2103
2246
2291
2266
2290
2350
2259
2118
US Rte 50 Intersection
Peak Hour Determination
EAST INTX
Attachment #2
Time Period
116
324
440
102
199
301
678
7:00
- 8:OC
148
337
485
113
273
386
794
7:15
- 8:14
166
350
516
113
312
425
875
7:30
- 8:3C
176
310
486
106
296
402
820
7:45
- 8:45
163
235
398
91
281
372
720
8:00
- 9:00
138
210
348
85
245
330
628
8:15
- 9:15
125
170
295
92
236
328
553
8:30
- 9:30
105
160
265
92
254
346
493
8:45
- 9:45
97
145
242
106
271
377
447
9:00
- 10:OC
102
142
244
118
290
408
408
9:15
- 10:1E
100
152
252
124
294
418
388
9:30
- 10:3C
105
154
259
130
308
438
370
9:45
- 10:4E
118
172
290
128
317
445
357
10:00
- 11:OC
119
172
291
126
327
453
358
10:15
- 11:1e
124
158
282
121
366
487
361
10:30
- 11:3C
126
148
274
130
395
525
364
10:45
- 11:4:
123
130
253
126
419
545
366
11:00
- 12:00
123
111
234
135
441
576
363
11:15
- 12:15
135
121
256
143
441
584
360
11:30
- 12:30
141
126
267
146
452
598
367
11:45
- 12:45
144
130
274
149
456
605
374
12:00
- 13:00
152
149
301
139
434
573
380
12:15 -
13:15
140
148
288
117
440
557
390
12:30 -
13:30
139
158
297
92
427
519
408
12:45 -
13:45
141
151
292
94
413
507
421
13:00 -
14:00
139
127
266
95
427
522
428
13:15 -
14:15
142
130
272
104
405
509
415
13:30 -
14:30
152
136
288
132
418
550
393
13:45 -
14:45
165
145
310
152
455
607
370
14:00 -
15:00
168
148
316
167
543
710
340
14:15 -
15:15
202
130
332
172
624
796
328
14:30 -
15:30
240
129
369
190
702
892
327
14:45 -
15:45
291
170
461
194
783
977
341
15:00 -
16:00
369
213
582
205
795
1000
351
15:15 -
16:15
414
237
651
226
839
1065
361
15:30 -
16:30
422
201
623
228
899
1127
372
15:45 -
16:45
425
160
585
235
884
1119
378
16:00 -
17:00
388
155
543
257
907
1164
391
16:15 -
17:15
349
144
493
285
968
1253
417
16:30 -
17:30
322
155
477
267
911
1178
432
16:45 -
17:45
258
145
403
248
890
1138
435
17:00 -
18:Cj
911bert W. Clifford and associates
Revision ' 0 - 3 Dec -996
275
265
265
248
208
201
181
146
125
116
109
112
116
122
132
133
133
136
127
122
122
113
119
122
123
121
118
124
133
139
147
156
162
170
169
169
184
192
187
172
142
VA Rte371
953
1059
1140
1068
928
829
734
639
572
524
497
482
473
480
493
497
499
499
487
489
496
493
509
530
544
549
533
517
503
479
475
483
503
521
530
541
562
583
604
604
577
1694
1930
2081
1956
1698
1507
1357
1250
1191
1176
1167
1179
1208
1224
1262
1296
1297
1309
1327
1354
1375
1367
1354
1346
1343
1337
1314
1355
1420
1505
1603
1744
1941
2103
2246
2291
2266
2290
2350
2259
2118
US Rte 50 Intersection
Peak Hour Determination
EAST INTX
Attachment #2
Counted totals adjusted to hourly volumes
Traffic From North Traffic From East
on VA Rte 37 (ramp) on US Rte 50
Left Right Total Left Thru Total
Time Period
7:00 - 8:00
7:15 - 8:15
7:30 - 8:30
7:45 - 8:45
8:00 - 9:00
8:15 - 9:15
8:30 - 9:30
8:45 - 9:45
9:00 - 10:00
9:15 - 10:15
9:30 - 10:30
9:45 - 10:45
10:00 - 11:00
10:15 - 11:15
10:30 - 11:30
10:45 - 11:45
11:00 - 12:00
11:15 - 12:15
11:30 - 12:30
11:45 - 12:45
12:00 - 13:00
12:15 - 13:15
12:30 - 13:30
12:45 - 13:45
13:00 - 14:00
13:15 - 14:15
13:30 - 14:30
13:45 - 14:45
14:00 - 15:00
14:15 - 15:15
14:30 - 15:30
14:45 - 15:45
15:00 16:00
15:15 - 16:15
15:30 - 16:30
15:45 - 16:45
16:00 - 17:00
16:15 - 17:15
16:30 - 17:30
16:45 - 17:45
17:00 - 18:00
WEST INTX
Traffic From West
on US Rte 50 Total
Thru Right Total N,S,E,W
230
145
375
67
247
314
722
178
900
1589
Time Period
7:00 - 8:00
293
183
476
97
325
422
769
226
995
1893
7:15
- 8:15
333
191
524
128
350
478
814
255
1069
2071
7:30
- 8:30
343
157
500
128
344
472
730
227
957
1929
7:45
- 8:45
315
144
459
127
317
444
619
224
843
1746
8:00
- 9:00
260
122
382
112
270
382
577
197
774
1538
8:15
- 9:15
229
120
349
102
254
356
515
181
696
1401
8:30
- 9:30
194
126
320
98
254
352
451
172
623
1295
8:45
- 9:45
174
121
295
100
267
367
404
167
571
1233
9:00
- 10:00
164
119
283
103
283
386
367
170
537
1206
9:15
- 10:15
149
109
258
96
296
392
347
160
507
1157
9:30
- 10:30
138
109
247
9,1
321
415
347
163
510
1172
9:45
- 10:45
121
109
230
9•1
336
430
350
139
489
1149
10:00
- 11:00
121
120
241
99
348
447
353
127
480
1168
10:15
- 11:15
128
125
253
116
374
490
363
142
505
1248
10:30
- 11:30
124
124
248
138
383
521
375
133
508
1277
10:45
- 11:45
129
126
255
149
400
549
375
150
525
1329
11:00
- 12:00
129
126
255
154
413
567
377
157
534
1356
11:15
- 12:15
129
126
255
149
428
577
366
133
499
1331
11:30
- 12:30
135
131
266
150
444
594
358
148
506
1366
11:45
- 12:45
135
149
284
145
449
594
367
155
522
1400
12:00
- 13:00
130
157
287
132
453
585
371
163
534
1406
12:15
- 13:15
134
182
316
133
446
579
384
194
578
1473
12:30
- 13:30
149
175
324
126
440
566
395
199
594
1484
12:45 -
13:45
161
168
329
129
429
558
393
198
591
1478
13:00 -
14:00
162
153
315
138
431
569
398
196
594
1478
13:15 -
14:15
158
150
308
124
430
554
384
203
587
1449
13:30 -
14:30
154
170
324
126
449
575
367
187
554
1453
13:45 -
14:45
150
182
332
115
510
625
357
189
546
1503
14:00 -
15:00
153
221
374
134
584
718
330
199
529
1621
14:15 -
15:15
158
228
386
179
652
831
321
190
511
1728
14:30
15:30
155
274
429
225
724
949
332
207
539
1917
14:45 -
15:45
153
337
490
294
786
1080
351
195
546
2116
15:00 -
16:00
149
341
490
325
844
1169
369
170
539
2198
15:15 -
16:15
143
352
495
355
902
1257
384
157
541
2293
15:30 -
16:30
144
339
483
372
953
1325
394
141
535
2343
15:45 -
16:45
151
319
470
328
980
1308
411
141
552
2330
16:00 -
17:00
157
333
490
307
984
1291
426
155
581
2362
16:15 -
17:15
155
358
513
274
1040
1314
448
187
635
2462
16:30 -
17:30
140
365
505
228
1004
1232
459
204
663
2400
16:45 -
17:4c
124
351
475
210
941
1151
447
221
668
2294
17:00 -
18:00
gilberr w. clifford and associates
Revision 7 0 - 3 Dec 1996
VA Rte37/ US Rte 50 Intersection
Peak Hour Determination
WEST INT`C
Attachment 72
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
deGrange, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
Attachment 3
ITE Trip Generation
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
degrange
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
AVERAGE WEEKDAY
DRIVEWAY VOLUMES
9/17/96
24 HOUR
AM PK
HOUR
PM P
LAND USE
TWO-WAY
SIZE
VOLUME
ENTER
EXIT
ENTE:
SHOPPING CENTER
SERVICE STATION
162.325
W/CONV.
T.G.L.A.
9566
136
80
44'
MART
CAR WASH
2.8
TH.GR.SQ.FT.
0
111
107
13E
FASTFOOD - DRIVE
6
THRU 3
WASH STALLS
TH.GR.SQ.FT.
648
0
0
24
BUILDING MATL &
LUMBER 1.8
ACRE
2130
85
82
5P
DISCOUNT SUPERSTORE
268
13
10
6
10
1,f;
SPECIALTY RETAIL
CENTER 45
TH.GR.SQ.FT.
1830
4.
20
OFFICE PARK
DRIVE-IN BANK
9.5
ACRE
1854
217
27
4C
2.4
HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT 7.6
TH.GR.SQ.FT.
TH.GR.SQ.FT.
637
15
12
50
BUSINESS HOTEL
100
OCCUPIED UNITS
1352
727
57
34
55
24
55
37
TOTAL
19622
680
405
882
Note: A zero rate indicates
no rate data
available
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
deGrange, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
Attachment 4
Trip Assignment
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
Degrange Commercial Development
Frederick County, Virginia
Estimate of Trips Generated by Degrange Devlopment on US Route 50
Trip Generation
24 Hr. Two -Way
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Shopping Center -
162325 GLFA (sq.ft)
Volume
9566
Enter
136
Exit
80
Enter
447
Exit
447
Service Station w/ Conv. Market -
2800
(sq.ft)
2484
111
107
136
136
Car Wash -
Fast Food w/ Drive Thru -
6
3000
wash stalls
(sq.ft)
648
0
0
24
24
Building Mat'l and Lumber -
2
site area (acre)
2130
268
85
13
82
57
53
Discount Super Store -
13000
(sq.ft)
610
12
6
12
12
24
13
25
Specialty Retail Center -
45000
(sq.ft)
1830
3
2
3
3
Office Paris -
10
site area (acre)
1854
217
27
40
228
Drive-in Bank -
High Turnover Restaurant -
2400
7600
(sq.ft)
(sq.ft)
637
15
12
50
54
Business Motel -
100
occupied units
1352
727
57
34
55
24
55
37
43
25
Values shown
in Italics represent
volumes not provided by ITE Trip
Generation 5th Ed.
Totals
22106
683
407
885
1051
Determination of Turn Ratios
Based on local knowledge of the existing traffic patterns, and existing and proposed
development in the surrounding area, a directional breakdown of trips generated
by the degrange commercial development was assumed to be as follows:
Trips on Rte 50
Trips on Rte 1317
From/To From/To
West East
25% 73%
South
2%
It is further assumed that trips heading east from the development will tum onto Rte 37
at the same ratio as the peak hour volume traffic on Rte 50 turns onto Rte 37
Trips on US Rte 50 To/From North To/From South
Westbound - 1250 285 274
Eastbound - 636 187 187
Totals - 1886 472 461
Tum Ratios - 25% 24%
Summary of Increase Traffic Volume Due to Development During PM Peak Hour
Total trips entering development - 885
Total Trips exiting development - 1051
Percentage from West - 25%
Percentage from East - 73%
Percentage from South - 2%
Percentage of trips from/to South Rte 37 - 24%
Percentage of trips from/to North Rte 37 - 251,
9#bert w. clifford and associates VA Rte 37/ US Rte 50 Intersection P.M. Peak Hour
Revision 1.0 - 4 Decemoer 1996 Increase Volumes Due to Development
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
deGrange, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
Attachment,5
U.S. Route 50/VA Route 37 Intersection
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
Vommercrai Ueveiopment
Frederick County, Virginia
Current US Rte 501 Va Rte 37 Intersection Volumes:
Western Intersection
Traffic From North
Traffic From East
Traffic From West
off of VA Rte 37
on US Rte 50
on US Rte 50
Total
Left Right Total
Left Thru Total
Thru Right Total
N,S,E,W
Time Period
16:30 - 17:30
155 358 513
274 1040 1314
448 187 635
2462
16:30 -
Eastern Intersection
Traffic From South
Traffic From East
Traffic From West
off of VA Rte 37
on US Rte 50
on US Rte 50
Total
Left Right Total
Right Thru Total
Thru Left Total
N,S,E,W
Time Period
16:30 - 17:30
349 144 493
285 968 1253
417 187 604
2350
16:30 -
Impact of Development on Current US Rte
50NA Rte 37 Intersection
Traffic Volumes
Western Intersection
_
Traffic From North
Traffic From East
Traffic From West
off of VA Rte 37
on US Rte 50
on US Rte 50
Time Period
Right
Thru
Thru Right
p.m. pk hr street
162
484
579 187
To dev
885
From dev
1051
Eastern Intersection
Traffic From South
Traffic From East
Traffic From West
off of VA Rte 37
on US Rte 50
on US Rte 50
Time Period
Left
Thru
Thru Left
p.m. pk hr street
158
326
388 192
Predicted Peak Hour Traffic Volumes at the
US Rte 50/VA Rte 37 Intersections
Western Intersection
Traffic From North
Traffic From East
Traffic From West
off of VA Rte 37
on US Rte 50
on US Rte 50
Total
Time Pe
Left Right
Left Thru
Thru Right
N,S.E.W
Time Period
16:30 - 17:30
155 520 675
274 1524 1798
1027 374 1402
3875
16:30 -
Eastern Intersection
Traffic From South
Traffic From East
Traffic From West
off of VA Rte 37
on US Rte 50
on US Rte 50
Total
Time Per
Left Right
Right Thru
Thru Left
N,S,E.W
Time Period
16:30 - 17:30
507 144 651
285 1294 1579
805 379 1183
3414
16:30 -
gilbert w. clifford and associates VA Rte 371 US Rte 50 Intersection P.M. Peak Hour
Revision 1.0 - 4 December 1,996 Intersection Traffic Volumes
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
deGrange, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
Attachment 6
VA Route 1317/U.S. Route 50
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, "Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
Degrange Commercial Development
Frederick County, Virginia
Predicted Intersection Volumes from Hardee's Restaurant Traffic Study dated March 1996
Traffic From South Traffic From North Traffic From East
VA Rte 1317 Dev Entrance on VA Rte 50
Time Period Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total
16.30 - 17:30 21 0 16 38 0 0 0 0 100 918 0 1018
Impact of Development of VA Rte 1317/US Rte 50 Intersection
Traffic From South Traffic From North Traffic From East
VA Rte 1317 Dev Entrance on VA Rte 50
Time Period Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
16.30 - 17.30 -7 18 -5 767 21 263 646
Predicted Peak Hour Traffic Volumes at the US Rte 50/VA Rte 1317 Intersection
Traffic From South Traffic From North Traffic From East
VA Rte 1317 Dev Entrance on VA Rte 50
Time Period Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total
16:30 - 17.30 14 18 11 44 767 21 263 1051 100 918 646 1663
Traffic From West
on VA Rte 50 Total
Left Thru Right Total NSEW
0 374 12 386 1441
Traffic From West
on VA Rte 50 Total
Left Thru Right Exit
221 885
Traffic From West
on VA Rte 50 Total
Left Thru Right Total NSEW
221 374 12 607 3365
Total
Enter
1051
filbert w Clifford and
and associates
November 19199VA Rte 1317/ US Rte 50 Intersection P.M. Peak Hour
Revision 1 0 - 29 February 1996
Increase Volumes Due to Development
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
deGrange, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
Attachment 7
VA Route 1317/U.S. Route 50
Planning Analysis
Gilbert W. Clifford &Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD
LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET
File name: Date: 12 - 5 - 19 96 Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR
(E/W): US ROUTE 50 (NIS) : VA ROUTE 1317 Analyst : RAM
Peak hour factor: .95 Comment: DEGRANGE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ANALYSIS 13
EAST WEST NORTH SOU7.
BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUN
LEFT TURN MOVEMENT
1. LT volume
221
100
14
767
2. Opposing mainline volume
1564
386
284
43
3. Number of exclusive LT lanes
1
1
0
2
Cross Product (2] * (1)
345644
38600
3976
329
Left Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd)
E
E
S
E
Left Turn Treatment Type:
Perm
Perm
Perm
Prot:
4. LT adjustment factor
1.0
1.0
N/A
.92
5. LT lane vol
N/A
N/A
N/A
417
RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT
Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd)
E
E
E
E
6. RT volume
12
646
11
263
7. Exclusive lanes
1
1
1
1
8. RT adjustment factor
.85
.85
.85
.85
9. Exclusive RT lane volume
14
760
13
309
10. Shared lane vol
0
0
0
0
THROUGH MOVEMENT
11. Thru volume
374
918
18
21
12. Parking adjustment factor
1
1
1
1
13. No. of thru lanes including shared
2
2
1
1
14. Total approach volume
374
918
18
21
15. Prop. of left turns in lane group
0
0
.44
0
16. Left turn equivalence
8.2
2.35
3.17
N/A
17. LT adj. factor:
N/A
N/A
.93
N/A
18. Through lane volume
187
459
19
21
19. Critical lane volume
187
760
19
309
Left Turn Check (if (16) > 8)
20. Permitted left turn sneaker capacity:
60
N/A
N/A
N/A
7200/Cmax
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD
SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET
File name: Date: 12 - 5 - 19 96
Time Period:
PM PEAK HOUR
NST
417
(E/W): US ROUTE 50 (NIS): VA
ROUTE 1317
3 0
Analyst
RAM
EAST
WEST
NORTH
SOI
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
130,
Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume
Worksheet
Critical through -RT vol: [19]
187
760
19
31
LT lane vol: [5]
N/A
N/A
N/A
4:
Left turn protection: (P/U/N)
U
U
U
:+
Dominant left turn: (Indicate by*�)
Selection Criteria based on the
Plan
1•
U
U
U
t
specified left turn protection
Plan
2a:
U
P
U
I
Plan
2b:
P
U
P
t
* Indicates the dominant left turn
Plan
3a•
*P
P
*P
I
for each opposing pair
Plan
3b:
P
*P
P
*t
Plan
4:
N
N
N
D
Phase plan selected (1 to 4)
Min. cycle (Corin) 60
Timing Plan
Value
Movement codes
Critical phase vol [CV]
Critical sum [CS]
CBD adjustment [CBD]
Reference sum [RS]
Lost time/phase [PL]
Lost time/cycle [TL]
Cycle length [CYC]
Green time
Critical v/c ratio [Xcm]
Status
1
Max. cycle (Cmax) 120
--- EAST -WEST ----
Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3
EWG
760 0 0
1196
1
1624
3
9
60
35.4
0.72
Under capacity.
0 0
0 0
2a
NORTH -SOUTH
Ph 1
Ph 2 Pi
STL
NST
417
19 0
3
3 0
20.8 3.8 0
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
deGrange, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
Attachment 8
VA Route 37/U.S. Route 50
Eastern Signal
Planning Analysis
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD
LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET
File name: Date: 12 - 5 - 19 96 Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR
(E/W): US ROUTE 50 (NIS) : VA ROUTE 37 Analyst : RAM
Peak hour factor: .95 Comment: DEGRANGE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ANALYSIS EAS
EAST WEST NORTH SOUTI
BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUNI
LEFT TURN MOVEMENT
I. LT volume
379
0
507
0
2. Opposing mainline volume
1579
N/A
0
N/A
3. Number of exclusive LT lanes
1
0
1
0
Cross Product [2] * [1]
598441
N/A
0
N/A
Left Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd)
E
E
E
E
Left Turn Treatment Type:
P+P
Perm
NOpp
Pew
4. LT adjustment factor
.95
N/A
.85
N/A
S. LT lane vol
336
N/A
0
N/A
RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT
Right Lane Configuration (E=EXC1, S=Shrd)
S
E
E
S
6. RT volume
0
285
144
0
7. Exclusive lanes
N/A
1
1
N/A
8. RT adjustment factor
.85
.85
.85
.85
9. Exclusive RT lane volume
0
335
169
0
10. Shared lane vol
0
0
0
0
THROUGH MOVEMENT
11. Thru volume
805
1294
0
0
12. Parking adjustment factor
1
1
1
1
13. No. of thru lanes including shared
2
2
0
0
14. Total approach volume
805
1294
596
0
15. Prop. of left turns in lane group
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
16. Left turn equivalence
8.2
8.2
3.17
N/A
17. LT adj. factor:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18. Through lane volume
402
647
596
0
19. Critical lane volume
402
647
596
0
Left Turn Check (if [16] > 8)
20. Permitted left turn sneaker capacity:
60
60
N/A
N/A
7200/Cmax
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD
SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET
File name: Date: 12 - 5 - 19 96
Time Period:
PM
PEAK HOUR
(E/W): US ROUTE 50 (NIS): VA
ROUTE 37
Analyst
RAM
EAST
WEST
NORTH
SOt
BOUND BOUND
BOUND
BOL:
Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume
Worksheet
Critical through -RT vol: (19]
402
647
596
0
LT lane vol: [5]
336
N/A
0
Nj
Left turn protection: (P/U/N)
P
U
N
Li
Dominant left turn: (Indicate by
t
Selection Criteria based on the
Plan
1:
U
U
U
U
specified left turn protection
Plan
2a:
U
P
U
V
Plan
2b:
P
U
P
17
* Indicates the dominant left turn
Plan
3a:
*P
P
*P
for each opposing pair
Plan
3b:
P
*P
P
*P
Plan
4:
N
N
N
N
Phase plan selected (1 to 4)
Min_ cycle (Cmin) 60
Timing Plan
Value
Movement codes
Critical phase vol [CV]
Critical sum (CS]
CBD adjustment (CBD]
Reference sum [RS]
Lost time/phase [PL]
Lost time/cycle [TL]
Cycle length [CYC]
Green time
Critical v/c ratio [Xcm]
Status
R_^.
Max. cycle (Cmax) 120
--- EAST -WEST ----
Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3
ETL EWT
336 647 0
1579
1
1624
3 3 0
9
120
26.6 48.5 0
0.95
At capacity.
1
-- NORTH -SOUTH -
Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph
NTL NST
596 0 0
3 0 0
44.9 0 0
deGrange Rezoning, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
deGrange, Route 50 West
Traffic Impact Study
County of Frederick, Virginia
Attachment 9
VA Route 37/U.S. Route 50 Intersection
Western Signal
Planning Analysis
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2I39
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD
LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET
File name: Date: 12 - 5 - 19 96 Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR
(E/W): US ROUTE 50 (NIS): VA ROUTE 37 Analyst : RAM
Peak hour factor: .95 Comment: DEGRANGE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ANALYSIS WE
EAST WEST NORTH SOU'
BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUN
LEFT TURN MOVEMENT
1. LT volume
0
274
0
155
2. Opposing mainline volume
N/A
1401
N/A
0
3. Number of exclusive LT lanes
0
1
0
1
Cross Product [2] * [1]
N/A
383874
N/A
0
Left Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd)
E
E
S
E
Left Turn Treatment Type:
Perm
P+P
Perm
NOp1
4. LT adjustment factor
N/A
.95
N/A
.85
5. LT lane vol
N/A
225
N/A
0
RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT
Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd)
E
S
S
E
6.
RT volume
374
0
0
520
7.
Exclusive lanes
1
N/A
N/A
1
8.
RT adjustment factor
.85
.85
.85
.85
9.
Exclusive RT lane volume
440
0
0
612
10.
Shared lane vol
0
0
0
0
THROUGH MOVEMENT
11.
Thru volume
1027
1524
0
0
12.
Parking adjustment factor
1
1
1
1
13.
No. of thru lanes including shared
2
2
0
0
14.
Total approach volume
1027
1524
0
182
15.
Prop. of left turns in lane group
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
16.
Left turn equivalence
8.2
8.2
3.17
N/A
17.
LT adj. factor:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18.
Through lane volume
514
762
0
182
19.
Critical lane volume
514
762
0
612
Left
Turn Check (if [16] > 8)
20.
Permitted left turn sneaker capacity:
60
60
N/A
N/A
7200/Cmax
Aesthetic
Landscape
Design
Features
Frederick Center
Impact Component Details & Proffer
AESTHETICS AND LANDSCAPING DESIGN FEATURES
The features mentioned in this description are made part of the proffer statementfor
the rezoning of 50.0540 acres of the H. Clay deGrange estate to B-2.
The Concept Plan presented for approval of Frederick Center clearly shows three
distinct site aesthetic and landscape features. In addition, a landscape feature shown
and featured is not as distinct, but is part of the conceptual plan for the Frederick
Center rezoning. These features are in addition to the requirements of the zoning
requirements for buffering, screening, parking lot design, landscaping and open
space for B-2 master planned developments such as Frederick Center. Project
features include:
• All proposed utilities will be underground.
• A thirty foot (30') landscaped green strip along the US Route 50 frontage
portion of the site.
• A landscaped green area along the north side of the main entrance.
• A landscaped,open, green visual focal link containing no structures with
the US Route 50 and 37 interchange area.
• A central open space area, currently shown as deGrange Park, planned as
part of the area rising in the west portion of the property.
In addition to these aesthetic and landscape features the owner will prepare, at the
time of subdivision, restrictive covenants and restrictions governing land use,
signage, parking, landscaping, design controls, and maintenance restrictions that
are enforced through private legal means as required by the Frederick County
Zoning code. A sample outline is attached to this document.
Landscaped green strip along Route 59 -The purpose of this feature is to direct
visitors and shoppers attention to the site, to reduce the degree of spatial enclosure
and to evoke a feeling of openness, directing attention to the view of the businesses
located in Frederick Center not away from the the site. The landscaped strip consists
of a three foot high earth berm with plant materials maturing between four to six
Frederick Center Impact Component Details & Proffer
feet and creating a screen of the automobile headlamps operating within the
Frederick Center site.
The thirty foot strip would be landscaped, at a minimum, in accord with the
landscape screen requirements of the Frederick County zoning ordinance The
zoning ordinance requires three plants per ten linear feet with a minimum four feet
in height, with one-third being deciduous plants and two-thirds being evergreen
plants. In this case, Frederick Center has a frontage of 900'+/- requiring at a
minimum of 270 plants using the minimum landscape requirements.
Currently the minimum requirements do not specify the number of plants for
parking lots and that only four foot high shrubs be provided to reduce headlamp
glare. Parking lots must be set back from property lines only five feet with a
building setback of 35 feet. The landscaped strip proposed is in addition to the
minimum requirements for parking.
Land5caved green focal area a en lance - The purpose of this feature is to create a
visual image of the site or a landscaped focal entrance feature. Plants selected for
this space would create an inherent visual image or focal point for the visual
character of the site with plants and trees to look upon. A combination landscape
form of ground cover to waist high (3-4 feet) plants, mixed evergreen and accent
deciduous plants, allowing for proper sight distance would be designed to highlight
the site features and draw attention to the entrance.
Currently there are no standards for entrance features to commercial centers or
industrial parks in the Frederick County Zoning ordinance.
Landsca ed open green visual focal link with interchange - The purpose of this
open landscaped area is to create—a connecting link with the existing major
transportation feature of the area, the Route 50 and Route 37 interchange. The
landscaped area opens the view from the interchange by creating a green area that
includes a major storm water facility and links the interchange visually with the
main facade of the commercial center. This landscaped link would not have
structures located within the area designated on the concept plan. A formal pattern
of closed spacing using a combination of plants to transform the floorscape and
ceilingscape into a horizontal link with the landform will be used. Ground cover
for open spacing and trees to look upon for closed spacing would be used. Both
deciduous and evergreen combinations would be used.
Currently no standards for this type of landscape feature exist in the Frederick
County zoning ordinance. Minimum open space is addressed during site planning
for each individual commercial site development, the minimum amount of
required open space is fifteen percent.
Frederick Center Impact Component Details & Proffer
412en svace area in the western part of the property "deGrange Park" - The purpose
of this feature is to create a link between the commercial portion of the site and the
portion of the site that is envisioned for office type uses. The open area would be
void of parking and structures, except possible protective shelters or gazebos. This
area is designated as an area for people activities and relaxation it is not envisioned
as an active recreation area but rather an passive open space area where activities
related to the community or the center could occur. A ground cover and a formal
pattern of a combination of plants to transform the floorscape and ceilingscape into
a park like setting with the landform will be used in this central area between retail
and office land uses. Ground cover for open spacing and trees to walk under would
be used. Both deciduous and evergreen combinations will be used. Currently no
standards for this type of landscape feature exist in the Frederick County zoning
ordinance. Minimum open space is addressed during site planning for each
individual commercial site development, the minimum amount of required open
space is fifteen percent.
alo^
i \` "
� ` `�`\ `/� Q�-i �� lam.-...� `�```�� � � I I �' +_/ s7�•-1_._.._- _ --r._� `_-, N:; / ! j `..1•�I i i-
Tl
� � / / �/ / 1 � i'.+_-=�_- AFF' �/r �•.
__ .,, ___ _� � ez - ?ate � w� � ` , -�..� � I � , f�4 j 1', ` • _
1i =-- 9- � Lfl $'� •.-.-+'� �s � � • \ `� ! � � '� -4
I, =a }� ��• a.•.� ti (�rfn4 �_�!i- �'`. ++
1 TL
.� ;� rte_ S "'�-_titer �� �� _-� _ t�_____�•--� ,,�Ci i
. AREA TO BE REZONED FROM RA TO B-2
51.0540 ACRES
0
0 250 500 1000
Graphic Scale in Feet
1"--500,
C_ M\1 __7
LANDSCAPE DESIGN FEATURES
1. A thirty foot (30') landscaped green strip along the Route 50
frontage protion of the site.
2. A landscaped green area along the north side of the main
entrance.
3. A landscaped, open, green visual focal link with the 50 and 37
interchange area.
4. A central open space area, currently shown as Degrange Park,
\planned as part of the area rising in the west portion of the
property.
Impact
Analysis
for
Rezoning
the
DeGrange
Property
Concept
P I a n
The DeGrange property,
located in the northwest
quadrant of the
intersection of
US Route 50 West &
Route 37, consists of
102.0216 acres
zoned Rural Area (RA).
51 acres
are requested for
Business General (B2) zoning.
The DeGrange property
is located in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District of
Frederick County, Virginia.
December. 1996
1
gilbert w. clifford
& associates, inc.
Engineers • Land Planners • Surveyors
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-667-2139 Fax 540-667-0493
Covenants &
Restrictions
Frederick Center
COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS
Impact Component Details & Proffer
In addition to the aesthetic and landscaping design features called for inclusion
as proffers, the applicant provides as follows, a set of restrictions and covenants
to serve as the basis for site performance within this commercial /office complex
A complete document using this format and addressing the elements of quality
described are to be adopted and recorded by the land owner. These covenants
and restrictions are required by the Frederick County Code 165-38. Shopping
centers, office parks and industrial ks parand shall be presented to Frederick
County for review and approval as required. A board of owners is established as
required to supervise and execute this legal agreement.
The preparation of a set of covenants and restrictions to be in substantial
conformance with the attached protective covenants and restrictions is proffered
for the rezoning of 50.0540 acres of the H. Clay deGrange estate to B-2.
PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTION
FOR
FREDERICK CENTER
RECITALS
Whereas, the owner desires to create on the property and any additions
thereto a business center with open spaces and a planned mix of office and
commercial uses, and desire to provide for the preservation and enhancement of
the property values, amenities and opportunities within the property and for the
maintenance of the real estate and improvements thereon, and to this end
desires to subject the property to the covenants, restrictions, easements, charges
and liens hereinafter set forth.
ARTICLE I
PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this Declaration to assure the orderly and attractive
development of the property in an efficient and harmonious manner, to
preserve and enhance property values, amenities and opportunities within the
property, to promote the health and safety of the occupants and to maintain a
harmonious relationship among the structures and the natural vegetation and
topography thereon. This declaration is designed to complement the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance and other local and state government regulations and
ordinances, and where conflicts occur, the more rigid requirement shall prevail.
ARTICLE II
PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED USES
PROHIBITED USES
No communication towers, satellite earth stations, dish antennae, or
exterior radio/TV antennae shall be permitted without the prior written consent
of the Architectural Review Board (the 'Board"), as provided in Article V, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
Approval from any public agency notwithstanding, no operation will be
permitted which creates objectionable noise, smoke, odors or which in any other
way, in the opinion of the Board, will constitute a nuisance or degrade the value
of the real estate within the property.
No rubbish or debris of any kind shall be placed or permitted to
accumulate upon or adjacent to any site, except in approved waste containers in
screened areas in locations at the rear or sides of building approved by the Board.
ARTICLE III
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PLAN APPROVAL REQUIRED
No Improvement shall to constructed, erected, placed, altered, added to,
maintained or permitted to remain on the property until the plans shall have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Architectural Review Board as
provided in Article IV.
BUILDING LINES
All setbacks shall be subject to approval of the Board.
SITE DESIGN
Location of Parking Lots
The curb or edge of any parking lot, loading zone or service area, shall not
be closer than 10 feet from the front street curb or from any property line.
Property Design
Design of the property as a total integrated complex is required. Building
design in terms of massing, scale, color and circulation shall relate to adjacent
buildings and to the total development. Orientation of uses shall be based upon
site considerations, uses of adjoining buildings, visual impact and overall
circulation patterns. When multiple structures are planned as part of a project
under single ownership, they shall be designed in a unified architectural and
spatial manner.
2
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN
Exterior Walls
Exterior wall materials shall be subject to review and approval by the
Architectural Board.
AUTOMOBILE PARKING
On -Site Parking Required
The owner of each lot or site shall provide adequate automobile parking
on such owner's lot or site capable of accommodating the reasonable parking
needs of its employees, visitors and company vehicles. No use or activity shall
be permitted on any lot or site of the property, unless adequate parking is
provided on the lot or site for such use or activity in accordance with the terms
and conditions set forth herein; and in the event that the parking requirements
on any lot or site increase as a result of a change in use of the lot or site or as a
result of an increase in the number of employees working at the site, it shall be
the owner's responsibility to provide additional parking areas, as approved by
the Board, either on the site or elsewhere, in order to accommodate such
increased parking requirements. Such additional parking areas shall be provided
prior to, or concurrently with, the institution of such changed use or the
employment of such additional employees.
Off -Site Parking
Each owner of occupant of any lot or site shall use its best efforts to
prevent its employees, lessees, agents, contractors, customers and visitors from
parking on any public street within the property.
Further, the Association shall have the right to cause vehicles parked on
any common area or public street with in the property to be removed by towing
or otherwise to a licensed garage for storage until called for by the owner of the
vehicle or his agent, provided that notice of such action shall first or
simultaneously therewith be given to at least one of the local late enforcement
officers. In the event of such removal or storage, the owner of the vehicle
3
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
involved shall be chargeable with and the said vehicle may be held for a
reasonable charge for its removal and storage.
Parking Area Standards
Parking areas shall be paved with asphalt or concrete and shall have
concrete curbs around their perimeters. Other special paving materials may be
used to accent special entrance areas or walkways, if approved by the Board. In
the front and on the side of buildings, paved parking areas larger than twenty-
four (24) parking spaces shall have landscaped islands and areas intermittently
spaced, as approved by the Board.
Screen
Where possible parking shall be screened from the view of Route 50 by
depressing grades, by use of landscaping, and/or by earth berms. A 30' vegetative
buffer is to be provided along the US Route 50 frontage.
Fences
No fences shall be allowed in the development without the prior written
approval of the Board of Architectural Review. Any permitted fences shall be
screened as hereinabove provided.
TRUCK LOADING AND PARKING
All loading docks shall be located in the rear of the buildings or screened
from view so that trucks using such docks will not be readily visible from public
streets.
OUTSIDE STORAGE
No outside storage of any type will be permitted without written approval
of the Board. When such approval is given, the outside storage area shall be
totally enclosed with a screen approved by the Board so that storage is not visible
from the neighboring buildings or property or the street.
4
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping Plan
All open areas on each lot not occupied by buildings and paved areas shall
be suitably graded and drained and shall be landscaped with lawns, trees and
shrubs. The landscape plan submitted to the Board for approval as part of the
plans shall show such things as the preservation of natural areas, the planting of
trees, shrubs and grass and installation of earth berms and screens and optional
underground sprinkling systems. Plant material shall be in conformance with
American Association of Nurserymen Standards for Nursery Stock, latest edition
(ANN). Landscaping, as approved by the Board, shall be installed within one
planting season of occupancy or within six months of substantial completion of
any building, which ever occurs first, provided that an extension may be granted
by the Board in the event of inclement weather. The date of substantial
completion shall mean that date on which the exterior walls and roof have been
installed. The installation and maintenance of all landscaping on each site shall
be done in a good and workmanlike manner.
Maintenance
All landscaping on each lot, including landscaping located within any
easements reserved by Declarant for such purpose, shall be properly maintained
by the owner of the lot, which maintenance shall include all necessary cutting,
watering, fertilizing, aerating, spraying, pruning and required replacements.
However, the Association may assume responsibility for the maintenance of
landscaping within the easement area reserved to declarant for landscaping and
related purposes. Dead or damaged planting material shall be promptly replaced.
Tree Removal
No healthy tree with a diameter exceeding eight (8) inches may be
removed without the approval of the Board, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld where removal of such trees is required in connection
with the location of a building, nr paved area. ReasonablC care shall be exercised
to preserve trees and assure that they remain healthy.
5
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
EASEMENT FOR LANDSCAPING AND RELATED PURPOSES;
COVENANT TO DEDICATE FOR STREET WIDENING
Easement Abutting Public Streets
There shall be and is hereby reserved to declarant a perpetual and non-
exclusive easement over any common area, for the purpose of erecting and
maintaining street intersection signs, directional signs, temporary promotional
signs, lawns, shrubbery, lighting, entrance features and/or "theme areas", lights,
stone, wood or masonry wall features and/or related landscaping.
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
All exterior lighting shall be designed, erected, altered and maintained in
accordance with the final drawings and specifications as approved by the Board,
Lighting shall be compatible and harmonious throughout the entire property
and shall be in keeping with the specific use of the building.
If automobile and truck parking areas are illuminated, the light sources
shall be screened to reduce visible glare from the street. All outside wirings for
exterior lighting shall be installed underground. On-site lighting shall be
directed away from any residential uses.
SIGNS AND GRAPHICS
Approval
All signs of every nature shall be uniform and consistent with the overall
development of the property and subject to the prior written approval of the
Board as to size, shape, color, material, design, wording and location. Where
possible multiple use "marquee" signs are desirable.
Temporary Signs
Temporary signs may be erected on a lot or site (i) by persons offering for
sale or lease premises on such lot or site, or (ii) by builders, lenders, and architects
involved in the construction and design of buildings on such lot or site. These
signs shall be designed in accordance with the Development Guidelines, and the
Z
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
design, size, location and number of signs shall be subject to the prior approval of
the Board. Signs offering property for sale or lease shall be removed within
thirty (30) days after completion of sale or lease of the property. Construction
signs shall be removed within thirty (30) days of completion of the shell of the
building
UTILITIES
Utilities
All new utility lines, including electrical and telecommunication lines,
shall be installed and maintained underground.
Reservation of Utility Easements
Declarant shall have the right to create at any time by recordation of an
appropriate instrument among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia,
temporary or perpetual easements for the purpose of locating, installing and
maintaining utility and drainage lines, walkways and trails, and the right of
access to said easement areas for construction, utility maintenance and
emergency vehicles, over, under, or across any and all lands within the property
except (i) building locations previously approved by the Board and any applicable
government authority or (ii) areas of a lot or site which now or hereafter are
reasonably set aside by the owner as proposed planned building locations and
which, if submitted for governmental approval as a building location, owner
reasonably believes would satisfy all state, local and federal regulations, statutes
and ordinances, and which are consistent with sound engineering and
architectural principles and practices. The declarant shall have the right to assign
the benefit of any such easement to any utility company or local government.
CONSTRUCTION
Once commenced, construction shall be diligently pursued to completion.
No construction or building materials, vehicles or mobile buildings shall be
located or stored within street rights-of-way or landscape easements.
ii
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION
During construction the owner shall be responsible for keeping the
premises in reasonably neat condition, preventing the accumulation of trash,
and shall prevent runoff of soil from the site onto adjacent property or the
streets.
MAINTENANCE
No building or other improvement on the property shall be permitted by
its owner or occupant to fall into disrepair, and each such building and other
improvement shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair, property
maintained and adequately painted or otherwise finished, clan and safe. All
asphalt or concrete pave surfaces shall be resurfaced or sealed as needed and all
potholes shall be promptly repaired. Unimproved sites shall be maintained in a
reasonably neat condition, free of debris.
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Owners may participate in any storm water management program
established or to be established for the property by declarant and/or the
association designed to serve their properties by separate agreement with the
declarant and/or the association. Participating owners shall contribute to the cost
of installing and/or maintaining the common retention areas and other shared
storm water management facilities ("Storm Water Management Facilities") on a
contractual basis, as set forth in the written agreements between the participating
owners and the declarant and/or the association (the "Storm Water
Management Facilities Agreement").
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Owners and occupants shall comply with all federal, state and local
governmental statutes; ordinances and regulations relating to environmental
protection, in relation to the property.
E:3
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
ARTICLE IV
ADMINISTRATION
AUTHORITY
This declaration shall be administered by the association, except for those
functions specifically reserved herein for declarant.
ESTABLISHMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BROAD
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF ASSOCIATION
I
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
COVENANT FOR ASSESSMENTS
LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENTS
REMEDIES OF THE ASSOCIATION IN EVENT OF DEFAULT
SUBORDINATION OF LIEN TO MORTGAGES
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT
PREVENTIVE REMEDIES
The Board, the Association or any Owner, lessee or licensee may proceed
at law or in equity to prevent the violation of this Declaration.
10
Protective Covenants And Restriction
For
Frederick Center
RIGHT OF ENTRY
ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS
CUMULATIVE REMEDIES
FAILURE TO ENFORCE NOT A WAIVER OF RIGHTS
ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND ACCEPTANCE
11
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director
�J
RE: Proposed Amendments for Assisted Living Care Facilities
DATE: December 4, 1996
The Planning Commission participated in an informal discussion regarding the above referenced use
during the November 20, 1996 meeting. This discussion provided an opportunity for staff to present
information pertaining to this use, as well as present ideas expressed by the Development Review and
Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). The Planning Commission felt that assisted living care facilities
were an important component of the health care system, and that Frederick County would receive
many requests to establish this use over the next several years.
The Planning Commission suggested that this use would be appropriate in the RP, Residential
Performance, District through the issuance of a conditional use permit. The commission also felt that
consideration should be given for the allowance of this use in the B2, Business General, District as
a "by -right" use since day care facilities and convalescent and nursing homes are permitted. The
commission directed staff to create reasonable performance standards for this use in the B2 District
which would provide guidance when conditional use permits were applied for in the RP District.
The information included with this memorandum is intended to establish draft performance standards
for assisted living care facilities. In creating this language, staff felt that the following issues should
be addressed:
• parking space considerations
• open space and recreational amenities
• primary and accessory structural heights
• buffer and screening requirements
Staff would like to use this opportunity to discuss these standards with the Planning Commission
prior to advertisement for public hearing. Staff asks that the commission consider this information
and provide direction to staff regarding this issue.
107 North bent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
DRAFT AMENDMENTS FOR ADULT CARE RESIDENCES AND
ASSISTED LIVING CARE FACILITIES
ARTICLE XXI Definitions
165-145. Definitions and word usage.
Adult Care Residences and Assisted Living Care Facilities - any place, establishment, or institution,
public or private, operated or maintained for the maintenance or care of four or more adults who are
aged, infirm, or disabled and who are cared for in a primarily residential setting, except (1) a facility
or portion of a facility licensed by the State Board of Health or the Department of Mental Health,
Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, and (ii) the home or residence of an individual
who cares for or maintains only persons related to him by blood or marriage, and (iii) a facility or
portion of a facility serving infirm or disabled persons between the ages of 18 and 21.
ARTICLE VI RP Residential Performance District
165-60. Conditional uses.
A. Convalescent and nursing homes, and adult care residences assisted living care facilities.
Q
U6 -c
ARTICLE X Business and Industrial Zoning Districts
165-82B. B2 Business General District use regulations.
Allowed Uses
sic
Health Services -----
ARTICLE IV Supplementary Use Regulations
165-48.5 Adult care residences and assisted living care facilities.
Adult care residences and assisted living care facilities located in the B2, Business General, District
shall meet the following requirements:
A. Parking lots shall meet the requirements specified in Section 165-27 of this Chapter. The
number of required parking spaces shall be based on a calculation of one (1) space per four
(4) beds plus one (1) space per employee on the primary shift.
B. Thirty percent (30%) of the total acreage of the site utilized for adult care residences and
assisted living care facilities shall remai inLgrei6in—;s Areas designated for buffers and
screening and stormwater management facat are required to serve this use may be
included in this percentage.
C. Adult care residences and assisted living care facilities shall be required to provide indoor and
outdoor areas for recreational purposes which include at least four of the following uses:
Court yards Walking paths
Gazebos Activity rooms
Exercise rooms Living rooms
Libraries
D. Maximum building heights for primary structuress chatt not exceed thirty-five135) feet in
beit. Maximum building heights for accessory structures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet
in height.
E. Zoning district buffers as specified in Section 165-37D of this Chapter, and road efficiency
buffers as specified in Section 165-37E of this Chapter shall be met.
NOTE. Excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance have been provided which demonstrate the
zoning district buffer and road efficiency buffer requirements
§ 165-37 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
§ 165-37
f
Distance
Buffer Required
Inactive
Active
Screening
(Minimum)
(Maximum)
Total
Category
Provided
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
A
Full screen
—
—
—
A
Landscape
—
—
—
screen
A
No screen
25
25
50
B
Full screen
25
25
50
B
Landscape
75
25
100
screen
B
No screen
150
50
200
C
Full screen
75
25
100
C
Landscape
150
50
200
screen
C
No screen
350
50
400
(b) Buffer categories to be
provided on
land to be developed
according to the zoning of the adjoining land:
Zoning
of Land
To Be
Zoning of Adjoining
Land
Developed
RP R4 R5
MH1 B1 B2
83 M1 M2
EM
RP
- - -
- A A
A A A
A
R4
- - -
- A A
A A A
A
R5
- - -
- A A
A A A
A
MH1
C C C
- B B
B B A
A
61
B B B
B - -
A A A
A
B2
B B B
B - -
A A A
A
B3
C C C
C B B
- - --
M1
C C C
C B B
- - -
-
16562 9-1-94
§ 165-37 ZONING § 165-37
Zoning
of Land
To Be Zoning of Adjoining Land
Developed RP R4 R5 MH1 B1 B2 B3 M1 M2 EM
M2 C .0 .0 C B B B B ——
EM C C C C B B B B ——
(2) If a lot being developed is adjacent to developed land which
would normally be required to be provided with a buffer but
which does not contain the buffer, the required buffer shall be
provided on the lot being developed. The buffer to be provided
shall be of the larger category required on either the lot being
developed or the adjacent land. Such buffer shall be in place of
the buffer normally required on the lot being developed. The
buffer may include required setbacks or buffers provided on the
adjacent land.
(Cont'd on page 16563)
16562.1 9-1-94
§ 165-37 ZONING
§ 165-37
(3) Whenever land is to be developed in the B1 or B2 Zoning District
that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in
the RA Rural Areas Zoning District, a B Category buffer shall be
provided on the land to be developed.
(4) Whenever land is to be developed in the B3, M1 or M2 Zoning
District that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential
purposes in the RA Rural Areas Zoning District, a C Category
buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed.
(5) The Planning Commission may waive any or all of the
requirements for the zoning district buffers on a particular site
plan when all uses shown on the site plan are allowed in the
zoning district in which the development is occurring and in the
adjoining zoning districts.
(6) [Added 4-12-19951 Where B3 (Industrial Transition) zoning
adjoins B2 (Business General) zoning on land contained within a
Master Development Plan, the Planning Commission may allow
for specific modifications in screening requirements.
(a) Such modifications shall be allowed at the Commission`s
discretion, provided that all the following conditions are met.
[11 The property line for which the modification is requested
is internal to the land contained within the Master
Development Plan.
[21 A specified use is proposed on the parcel for which the
modification is requested.
[31 The modification shall not involve a reduction to required
buffer distances.
[41 The proposed components of the buffer are clearly
indicated on a site plan for the parcel. .
[51 The site plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
(b) The approval of modified screening shall apply only for the
specified use approved. Any change in use of the parcel
including additions or site alterations will require review by
the Planning Staff and may require review by the Planning
16563 7-10-96
§ 165-37 ZONING § 165-37
easement if existing vegetation achieves the functions of a full screen.
[Amended 6-12-19961
E. Road efficiency buffers.
(1) [Amended 9-13-19951 All residential structures shall be
separated from arterial or major collector roads, as designated by
the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan, by the following road efficiency buffers:
(2) Such road efficiency buffers shall be measured from the principal
structure to the nearest edge of the road right-of-way, with the
inactive portion starting at the road right-of-way as shown in the
example diagram.' Access roads to property through these
buffers are permitted.
(3) All road efficiency buffers shall contain a row of evergreen trees
intended to reach a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
These plants shall provide a continuous screen, with trees spaced
no more than eight (8) feet apart. The road efficiency buffer may
be reduced as described above if full screening is provided as
described in this section. Landscaping shall not obstruct safe
sight distances. A full buffer shall be required if landscaping
cannot be provided due to sight distance requirements.
I Editor's Note: The diagram detailing road efficiency buffers is located at the end of this chapter.
1 16564.1 9-1-96
Distance Buffer Required
Inactive
Active
(Minimum)
(Maximum)
Total
Road Type
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Interstate/
arterial/
limited access
Full
50
50
100
Reduced
40
40
80
Major collector
Full
40
40
80
Reduced
25
25
50
(2) Such road efficiency buffers shall be measured from the principal
structure to the nearest edge of the road right-of-way, with the
inactive portion starting at the road right-of-way as shown in the
example diagram.' Access roads to property through these
buffers are permitted.
(3) All road efficiency buffers shall contain a row of evergreen trees
intended to reach a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
These plants shall provide a continuous screen, with trees spaced
no more than eight (8) feet apart. The road efficiency buffer may
be reduced as described above if full screening is provided as
described in this section. Landscaping shall not obstruct safe
sight distances. A full buffer shall be required if landscaping
cannot be provided due to sight distance requirements.
I Editor's Note: The diagram detailing road efficiency buffers is located at the end of this chapter.
1 16564.1 9-1-96
i.� COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Planner II 01--l'
SUBJECT: Discussion --Proposed 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
DATE: January 3, 1997
As most Commissioners are aware, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee
evaluates departmental Capital Improvements Plan project requests beginning in the fall of each
year. The Subcommittee formulates the requested projects in rank order based on established
evaluation criteria.
At their December 9, 1996, meeting, the Subcommittee finalized their recommendation for the
1997-98 CIP. Materials related to the preparation of this recommendation along with the
proposed plan are attached.
The following documents are attached:
► Cost Summary for the proposed 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan.
► Project Summary for the proposed 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan. This includes a
brief outline of the projects included in last year's CIP, and those included in the
proposed 1997-98 CIP.
► The CIP Project Request Evaluation format and results of the evaluation.
► The proposed 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachment
107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
pcmemo.96
Page 2
Planning Commission Agenda
Meeting Date: January 15, 1997
Discussion -1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
COST SUMMARY
The proposed CIP contains 22 projects with a total cost of Board's 959,886. This figure includes the
estimated debt service on all projects except the School
Trans ortation/Maintenance/Warehouse and Administration B h are g a e foraout of use fe�scand
Transportation/Maintenance/Warehouse
does not include Sanitation Authority or Landfill projects w P
are made a part of the CIP in the form of addendum. A project This Reg Regional Jail projr the Re gional ect
complex is not included in the CIP, but is included in an addendum.
d be com leted prior to the beginning of Fiscal Yeayear r 1997.) Of (not including debt seryhis gce).
shoulP
would come from the County's General
As presently proposed, projects scheduled in the first year (1997x98 fiscal year) would have a
total County cost of $2,007,637, excluding estimated debt service, for all projects.
PROJECT SUMMARY
ous
The proposed 1997-98 CIP consists of 22 projeeW to thetCIP The remaining 18 s from the County's 1were included
departments. Of these project requests, 4 are n
in the 1996-97 CIP. The new projects consist of: three from ( School Board.. are ndi at d in boldface and
e
Department of Parks and Recreation. These new project requests
italic print on the evaluation form.
Oject
Listed below are the modifications that each county department h is which made their pcl uded in the
requests for inclusion in the �997g98ICIP are not discussedP. Please note: the
1996-97 CIP and again
School Board Projects
Projects no longer included in the CIP School --- In progress. Anticipated completion by
1) New Stonewall Elementary
Fall 1997. Anticipated completion by
2) Senseny Road Elementary School --- In progress.
Fall 1997.
3) James Wood Middle School Roof Replacement --- Completed.
4) Aylor, Hoover Chiller replacement ---Completed.
Projects which are new to the C1F: projected student
1) Third County High School --- Necessary to satisfy p roj
enrollment.
Page 3
Planning Commission Agenda
Meeting Date: January 15, 1997
Discussion - 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
2) New Elementary School, Back Creek --- Necessary to satisfy projected student
enrollment.
3) New Gainesboro Elementary School --- Necessary to satisfy projected student
enrollment.
Parks and Recreation Projects
Projects no longer included in the CIP:
1) Support Facilities -CB --- Will be considered for inclusion in future CIPs
Projects which are new to the CIP:
1) Skateboard Park --- Project to consist of skateboard bowl, half pipe. and open
skate area. This project has been included at the request of the community's
youth.
Handley Library
The project request for the 1996-97 CIP will be included in the 1997-98 CIP.
Airport Authority
Projects no longer included in the CIP:
1) Perimeter Security Fence --- Completed.
2) T -Hanger Preparation --- Completed.
3) Airfield Maintenance Equipment Bldg --- Completed.
4) Transient Apron Expansion, Design and Construction --- Completed.
Projects which are new to the CIP:
No new project requests were submitted.
Sanitation Authority Projects
Projects no longer included in the CIP:
1) Administration and Maintenance Complex --- Completed.
2) Boundary Lane Water and Sewer Line --- Completed.
Projects which are new to the CIP:
No new project requests were submitted.
Page 4
Planning Commission Agenda
Meeting Date: January 15, 1997
Discussion - 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Landfill and Compactors Projects
Projects no longer included in the CIP:
1) Landfill Development, Cell "D", Phase I --- Completed.
2) New Compactor Site --- Completed.
Projects which are new to the CIP:
"- 1) Landfill Development, Cell "A", Phase II. Necessary to meet demand and
extend landfill cell life.
2) Installation of Active Gas Management Cells A and B, Phase I --- Necessary
during closure of Cells A and B.
FREDERICK COUNTY MING
M
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGn-e-'
PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS
ent Projects.
ta
The attached forms were used to
evaluate requested Capital Improvemhich effects iu relatnvems
a list of seven evaluation criteria. Each criterioncriterion. has been assigned a weight
importance when compared to the other crite The projects are listed by
given to each project.
which was iven a rating between zero an(
The second form was used
was reviewed agacord the inst t 11 of he criterion and was appropriately fits the criterion. Tb
department, Each projectis the
din cell_ The numeric figure to the right of th cell.TheThe scoresul
four. A score of four being the highest, indicating that the protect most this
samerating was then entered in the corresponding g
rating being multiplied by the weight and the resulting score entered In
le and the totz
of the r g each of the seven criteria were then totaled
kin is meal bpl ed by the
which were given to the protects for The higher the score
entered in the far right hand column. Only the resused to a srst n ranking projects. ng
weight was totaled. These roject is giventotal scores . library.
then u
the greater the priority
otal score derived for a request for a new libraryo e hs for leach
Below is an examp
le showing the t given top j
ondin cell. The score (the rating multipalidedd bgy P
to the criteria are shown beneath the he critgrion. Ther mg g t b
corresponding
criterion has been entered to the left in the corn ptotal score of
en been entered to the right of the cell. The dual criterion. 5 was arrive a
weight) has then for each lndi
scores (the number to the right of each cell)
1997 FREDFPJCKCO 'y
CAPITAL UWROVEWN
EVALUATION FORM
pRiOR1T1'
LISTID BYDI+PARIMM , IN ORDIIt OF DI PAIS
Distribute Economic Related Public
CRI']'EjZION Conform to Health, Legally lm act to Other Support IOTA
and Comp. Plan Safety, Required Services P
Projects
%lelfare 2 3 3
WEIGHT 3
4 4 2
2/6 2/8 0/0
4/8 2/4 0/0 319 35
New Library
FREDERICK COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING
PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
TOPIC
DESCRIPTION
WEIGHT
1
Conformance to
Does the Project conform to, or contribute to
Comprehensive Plan
the attainment of goals/objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan? Is the Project 3
consistent with establishedpolicies?
2
Public Health, Safety or
Does the Project improve conditions
Welfare
affecting health safety or welfare? Does it
4
eliminate a clear health or safety risk?
3
Legal Requirement
Is the Project required in order to meet a
State or Federal mandate or some other legal
4
requirement?
4
Equitable Distribution of
Does the Project meet a special need of some
Services
segment of the population that has been
identified as needing assistance? Would the
2
Project provide equivalent services to a
population group that is currently under-
served relative to other areas of the county?
5
Economic Impact
Is the Project essential to, or would it
encourage some form of economic
development? Would the Project improve
2
the tax base, reduce operating expenses,
produce revenue, or otherwise have a positive
effect on the local economy?
6
Coordination with other
Is the Project necessary for the successful
Projects
completion of other projects? Is the Project
3
art of a largerproject?
7
Public Support
Are county residents fully informed and
supportive of the proposed Project?
3
1997 FREDERICK COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
EVALUATION FORM
LISTED BY DEPARTMENT; IN ORDER OF DEPARTMENT PRIORITY
CRITERION Conform to Health, Legally Distribute Economic Related Public
and Comp. Plan Safety, Required Services Impact to Other Support TOTAL
Welfare Projects
WEIGHT 3 4 4 2 2 3 3
LIBRARY
New Library
2/6
2/8
0/0
4/8
2/4
0/0
3/9
35
SCHOOL SYSTEM
New Gainesboro Elementary School
216
218
0/0
112
214
113
113
16
Administration Building Renovations
Transportation/Maintenance/Warehouse
2/6
2/8
0/0
1/2
3/6
2/6
1/3
31
Third County High School
2/6
2/8
0/0
2/4
3/6
113
113
30
New Elementary Sch o ol, Back Creek
2/6
2/8
0/0
3/6
2/4
113
113
30
PARKS AND RECREATION
Bikeway System
4/12
2/8
0/0
1/2
1/2
2/6
2/6
36
Park Land
3/9
1/4
0/0
4/8
1/2
1/3
2/6
32
Open Play Area - CB
3/9
1 /4
0/0
3/6
1 /2
1 /3
2/6
30
Softball Complex - SP
3/9
1/4
0/0
1/2
1/2
1/3
2/6
26
Baseball Field Renovations - SP
2/6
1/4
0/0
1/2
1/ 2
1/3
2/6
23
Field House
216
1/4
010
2/4
1/2
1/3
2/6
25
Tennis/Basketball Complex - CB
3/9
1/4
0/0
3/6
1/ 2
2/6
1/3
30
Indoor Pool Facilities
2/6
1/4
0/0
2/4
1/ 2
2/6
2/6
28
Soccer Complex - SP
3/9
1/4
0/0
3/6
1/ 2
1/ 3
2/6
30
Maintenance Compound - SP
1/3
1/4
0/0
0/0
3/6
3/9
1/ 3
25
Tennis/Picnic Area - SP
3/9
1/4
0/0
1/2
0/0
2/6
2/6
27
Shelter, Stage Seating - CB
3/9
1/4
0/0
3/6
2/4
2/6
2/6
25
Skateboard Park
113
114
0/0
112
112
113
2/6
20
AIRPORT
Land Acquisition - South Side RPZ
2/6
2/8
3/12
1/2
2/4
2/6
2/6
44
Land Aquisition, Bufflick Road
2/6
2/8
3/12
1/2
2/4
2/6
2/6
44
Route 645 Relocation - Design
2/6
1/4
1/4
0/0
1/2
2/6
1/ 3
25
Route 645 Relocation - Construction
2/6
1/4
1/4
0/0
1/2
2/6
1/3
25
FREDERICK COUNTY
VIRGINIA
Capital Improvements Plan
1997-98
Fiscal Year
DRAFT
Presented to the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Januar} 15, 1997
for their consideration
Endorsed bN the
Frederick County
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee
December 9. 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................1
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... .
School Board .......................................... 2
Parks and Recreation
County Administration 3
HandleyLibrary.........................................................3
AirportAuthority........................................................4
Public Works ..... 4
Regional Adult Detention Center 4
Sanitation Authority...................................................... 5
Draft 1997-98 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .................................. 6
CIP CHART EXPLANATIONS ............................. .
PROJECT FUNDING..........................................................8
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.................................................... . 9
Frederick County Public Schools ...........................................
9
New Gainesboro Elementary School .............................. . .... 9
Administrative Building Renovations .................................. 9
Transportation/ Maintenance/ Central Warehouse Facility .................
10
Third County High School ..........................................
10
New Elementary School, Back Creek District ..........................
11
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ...........................
12
Bicycle Facility..................................................12
Parkland in Western Frederick County ................................
12
Open Play Area - Clearbrook Park ...................................
13
Softball Complex - Sherando ................
Baseball Field Renovation - Sherando................................
14
FieldHouse.....................................................14
Tennis/Basketball Complex - Clearbrook ..............................
15
Soccer Complex - Sherando........................................
16
Maintenance Compound and Office - Sherando .........................
16
Tennis/Picnic Area - Sherando......................................
16
Shelter/Stage Seating - Clearbrook ............................. . ... . .
17
Skateboard Park..................................................17
Handley Regional Library
................................................
18
Frederick County Library ..........................................
18
ADDENDUM.................................................... ., ..........19
Frederick County Sanitation Authority ...................................... 19
Water Transmission Lines ............................. . ............ 19
Miller Heights Water Distribution Line .........................
19
Route 50 - Victory Road Water Loop - Project 2 ..................
19
Stonewall - Lee Avenue Water Loop ...........................
19
Frederick County Public Works Department .............. . ..................
20
Construction Debris Landfill ........................................
20
Closure of Cells A and B, Phase I ....................................
20
Landfill Development - Cell "A", Phase II - Five Acres ...................
21
Installation of Active Gas Management Cells A and B, Phase I .............
21
Winchester Regional Airport ..............................................
22
Land Acquisition - South Side RPZ, Phase II ...........................
22
Route 645 Relocation - Design Only ..................................
22
Route 645 Relocation - Construction Phase ............................
23
Land Acquisition, Bufflick Road, Phase II .............................
23
Regional Secure Juvenile Detention Center ............................
24
PROJECT EVALUATION FORM ............................................... 25
PROJECT LOCATIONS MAP .......... ......................................... 26
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FREDERICK COUNTY
1997-98
INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation
of plans for capital outlays to the local planning commissions.
The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for
major capital expenditures for the County for the ensuing five
years.
The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the
plan as they are completed or as priorities change. The plan is
intended to assist the County Board of Supervisors in
preparation of the County budget. In addition to determining
priorities for capital expenditures, the County must also ensure
that projects contained within the CIP conform to the
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The annual review process begins with the submission of
capital expenditure requests from County departments and
relevant agencies in the fall of the year. These requests are
evaluated by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Committee, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. using
a list of seven evaluation criteria. Each criterion is assigned a
weight which reflects the relative importance when compared
to the other criterion. The Committee then meets with
representatives of departments making expenditure requests and
determines a recommended priority for the various requests.
This recommendation is passed to the Planning Commission
which in turn makes a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
The CIP is strictly advisory. Once adopted, project priorities
may change throughout the year based on changing
circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects ma}
not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The
status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further
in the future it is projected.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
1. School Board Projects
Page 2
The old Stonewall School building has been razed. and the new -
Stonewall Elementary School building is projected to be open
for students in the fall of 1997. Student capacity of this new
school is approximately 585 pupils.
During the past year, underground storage tanks have been
removed from the James Wood Middle School facility. The
removal of these tanks was necessary to comply with federal
regulations regarding underground storage tanks. This project
completes the final phase of complying with Federal
regulations for the school division.
Construction of a baseball/softball/multipurpose field athletic
complex at the James Wood High School site is currently
underway. These facilities will enable the high school to host
interscholastic contests at the school site. Prior to the
completion of this project, these contests were held at various
sites around the County and within the City of Winchester. The
facility will also be available to the County's Parks and
Recreation Department for their programing use.
In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle
the student population's projected growth, three new school
facilities are proposed for the next five years. These new
facilities include: two elementary schools, and a high school.
The two elementary schools would be built in the Gainesboro
and Back Creek districts. The high school is proposed for the
County -owned parcel adjacent to the Redbud Run Elementary
School.
Funding is being requested for a new
transportation/maintenance/central warehouse facility. The
project involves building the proposed structure(s) adjacent to
the Red Bud Run Elementary School. The existing maintenance
facility has reached the point where it is difficult to house all of
the school system's buses and still provide service to an
increasing number of County vehicles from other departments.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
2. Parks and Recreation
Projects
3. County Administration
4. Handley Library
Page 3
Several projects are planned in and around Sherando Park. The
County was awarded an ISTEA Transportation Enhancement
Program grant in 1993 to build a Bikeway System. This 2.45
mile facility will serve several residential areas in southern
Frederick County. The bicycle path has been designed to link
the residential developments and park land on the north of
Route 277 with Sherando Park and Sherando High School. In
addition to other improvements at Sherando Park, two projects
are planned that will be used by Sherando High School, the
proposed softball complex and baseball complex.
Several projects are planned for Clearbrook Park including an
open play area, tennis/basketball complex, and a shelter with a
sound stage and seating.
In an effort to reduce the gap in provision of services to the
western portion of the County, the Parks and Recreation
Department is proposing to purchase park land in western
Frederick County.
Two additional projects that are planned are a field house and
an indoor pool. Locations for the projects have not been
determined, although both projects could be built on currentl}
owned County land. Both projects could also be utilized by the
County school system.
Many of the County's administrative offices have been
relocated to the Frederick County Administrative Building. at
107 North Kent Street in Downtown Winchester. An addition
has recently been completed that enlarges the Frederick County
Administrative Building to 100,000 square feet of office space.
This addition enables the majority of the county- departments to
be located at a central location in downtown Winchester.
As part of a master plan prepared for the Handley Library by a
library consulting firm, it was recommended that a library be
built in southeastern Frederick County. A library in this area
would enable the Handley Library to provide service to the
growing population in southern Frederick County. A library
site has been selected, near the Lakeside community. A 34.000
square foot building is proposed which could be expanded. in
stages, ultimately to 50,000 square feet.
r-reaeriex county 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
5. Airport Authority
6. Public Works Projects
(Not funded by the General
Fund)
7. Regional Adult
Detention Center Projects
Page 4
An updated master plan for the Winchester Regional Airport
was adopted in December of 1993. This plan contains
recommendations regarding capital improvements to the airport
in order to meet federal guidelines for airports the size of the
Winchester Regional Airport and to provide better service to
airport users.
The Airport Authority has included project requests that relate
to land acquisition. Land acquisition is the primary goal of the
airport as they proceed to satisfy both federal regulations and
plan for anticipated growth.
Funding for Airport projects is derived through a complex
formula where the federal and state government contribute a
majority of the funding.
The Public Works Department is proposing four projects for the
current CIP. They include:
• Construction Debris Landfill
• Closure of Cells "A" and "B", Phase I
• Landfill Development - Cell "A", Phase II
• Installation of Active Gas Management Cells A and B.
Phase I
The landfill development project and the cell closure projects
are all projects that the Landfill is required to undertake in order
to comply with regulations imposed by the Department of
Environmental Quality. Funding for the landfill projects are
provided through the Landfill Enterprise Fund.
A juvenile detention facility is currently under construction.
Located adjacent to the pre-release facility in the Fort Collier
Industrial Park, this facility is necessary to meet the needs of
the community. When completed, this facility xvill be capable
of housing 32 juveniles.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Page 5
8. Sanitation Authority The Sanitation Authority is proposing one project. Water
Projects Transmission Lines. These lines involve the extension of water
(Not funded by the General service to three areas of the county: Miller Heights. Route
Fund) 50Nictory Road, and Stonewall - Lee Avenue. The Sanitation
Authority Projects will not be funded directly through the CIP.
These projects receive their funding through user fees.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
----DRAFT---- CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ----DRAFT----
1997-98
County
.Priority
Department
Priority
Projects
COUNTY CONTRIBUTION County
1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 Contributions
Notes
Interest From Any TOTAL COUNTY Total Project
Debt Service COSTS Costs
I
I
2
Airport Land Acquisition - Southside RP
Airport Land Acquisition - Bufflick Road
12,500
10,000
12,500 -
10,000
A
A
N/A
N/A
12,500
$625,000
1
Bicycle Facility
51,215
10,000
$500,000
1
New Library
489,150
51,215
B
N/A
51,215
$318,387
14
Shelter, Stage Seating - CB
326,659
489,150
326,659
N/A
N/A
489,150
326,659
$8,041,485
$326,659
2
Park Land
1,154,772
1,154,772
N/A
1,154,772
$1,154,772
4
Transportation/Maintenance/Warehouse
begin
0
C
N/A
0
5
Third County High School
1,500,000
15,600,000
14,900,000
32,000,000
3,888,513
35,888,513
$35,888,513
10
3
New Elementary School - Back Creek
600,000
9,100,000
9,700,000
4,581,872
14,281,872
$14,281,872
Open Play Area - CB
416,992
416,992
N/A
416,992
$416,992
11
7
Tennis/Basketball Complex - CB
533,586
533,586
N/A
533,586
$533,586
12
9
Soccer Complex - SP
1,127,692
1,127,692
N/A
1,127,692
$1,127,692
13
14
8
Indoor Pool Facilities
1,953,200
1,953,200
NIA
1,953,200
$1,953,200
11
Tennis/Picnic Area - SP
612,495
612,495
N/A
612,495
$612,495
15
2
New Gainesboro Elementary School
300,000
8,400,000
8,700,000
3,958,611
12,658,611
$12,658,611
16
4
Softball Complex - SP
422,328
422,328
N/A '
422,328
$422,328
17
3
Route 645 Relocation - Design
2,500
2,500
A
N/A
2,500
$125,000
18
4
Route 645 Relocation - Construction
28,000
28,000
A
N/A
28,000
$1,400,000
19
10
Maintenance Compound - SP
168,539
168,539
N/A
168,539
$168,539
0
1
6
5
Field House
1,542,000
1,542,000
N/A
1,542,000
$1,542,000
Baseball Field Renovations - SP
662,755
662,755
N/A
662,755
$662,755
2
13
Skateboard Park
200,000
200,000
N/A
200,000
$200,000
TOTALS
$2,007,637 $9,902,075 $3,588,086 $18,181,200 $26,435,385
$60,114,383
$12,428,996 $72,543,379
$82,959,886
A - Pallial (ending Ii'om Federal Airport Improcemenl 1'rognno (FA IP) and State Commonwealth Airport Fund (SCAF) grants
It - Partial limding Goer State grants and local gills C - Debt Sen ice is ooavailable al time otIll inting
01/04/96
CIP CHART
EXPLANATION
Page 7
The Capital Improvements Plan chart, on the previous page.
contains a list of the capital improvement projects proposed for
the County over the next five year period. Each column's
origination and justification is briefly explained below.
County Priority - The project's priority rating, based on all
projects included in the CIP. County Priority ratings are the
result of the criterion and weight evaluation process and is
illustrated on the Evaluation Form. The Evaluation Form is
located on page 29 of this booklet.
Department Priority - The project's priority rating based on
the requesting department's determination.
Projects - The name of the capital improvement project.
County Contribution - The dollar value from the County's
General Fund that will be contributed toward the project's
funding. This value is listed by individual fiscal years, and also
by total contributions over the five-year period. The total
contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year
breakdowns, does not include any debt service projections.
Notes - Indicates the footnotes that may apply to a particular
project.
Interest From Any Debt Service - As applicable. indicates the
projected interest for a particular project. These interest
projections are provided by individual departments and are
based on the most accurate interest rate information available at
the time the CIP is assembled.
Total County Costs - The total expenditures that the County
will contribute for a particular project. This column includes
both fiscal year contributions and debt service expenses that
may be associated with the projects funding. Essentially. this
column represents the total county contributions for a particular
project. (County Contributions with Interest)
Total Project Costs - Total project costs including county and
other landing Source contributions. Tlie valises in this column
are not necessarily contributed entirely by the County.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Page 8
PROJECT FUNDING The projects included in the 1997-98 Capital
Improvements Plan have a total cost of $82.959,886. If
all projects are undertaken, Frederick County will
contribute $60,114,383 over the five year period of
1997-2002. This total does not include the interest from
any debt service. By adding the projected debt service
of $12,428,996, the total county contribution of the
approved projects comes to $72,543,379. The costs
associated with the School Board's request for a
Transportation/Maintenance/Central Warehouse facility
and Administration Building renovations are not
included in any cost summaries.
► School projects are funded through a combination of
loans from the Virginia Public School Authority and the
Virginia Literary Fund.
► Sanitation Authority projects will be funded by the
Sanitation Authority working capital funds and Virginia
Resource Authority Revenue Bonds.
► Landfill projects are funded by retained funds generated
by the landfill fees and coordinated by the Landfill
Enterprise Fund.
► Funding for Parks and Recreation projects will come
from the unreserved fund balance of the County. The
Bicycle Facility project will be funded through a
Recreational Access Fund grant, an ISTEA
Transportation Enhancement Program grant. and a 20%
match from the general fund. The Parks and Recreation
Commission will actively seek private sources of
funding or cooperation for projects not funded by the
County.
► Funding for a Frederick County Library could include a
contribution from the County general fund. a bond.
donation of land, and substantial fund raising efforts by
the Library Board.
► Airport projects will be funded by contributions from
the federal, state, and local governments. The local
portion may include contributions from Warren.
Shenandoah, Clarke, and Frederick Counties. and the
City of Winchester.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Frederick County
Public Schools
Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
PRIORITY 2
Page 9
New Gainesboro Elementary School
Description: This project consists of the construction of an
elementary school (grades K-5) of approximately 65.000 square
feet to serve 550 students. The school is located on a 20 acre
site.
Capital Cost: $8,700,000
Debt Service: $3,958,611
Justification: This project will serve approximately 550
students in grades K-5. The Frederick County School Board
purchased 20 acres of land in the Gainesboro district in 1990 in
anticipation of the future need to provide space for increased
student enrollment.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -98 and complete in FY -
1999.
Administrative Building Renovations
Description: This project is contingent upon the School Board
offices being relocated to the Frederick County Administrative
Building. This project involves the renovation of the school
administrative office to an elementary school. Renovations
will enable the building to be converted back to an elementary
school of approximately 58,000 square feet. Amenities
included in this renovation will bring the school to a level of
amenities similar to other county elementary schools.
Capital Cost: To be determined.
Justification: The renovated school will handle 550 students.
The elementary school will serve students in grades K-5.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -98.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
PRIORITY 3
PRIORITY 4
Page 10
Transportation/ Maintenance/ Central Warehouse Facility
Description: This project is contingent upon agreement is-ith
numerous County agencies. The project involves the
construction of a central location for the County's
transportation and maintenance facility. The Proposed facility
would provide a combined facility for the transportation/
maintenance/ central warehouse facility needs of the school
division and various other county departments. To be located on
County owned property, adjacent to the Redbud Run
Elementary.
Capital Cost: To be determined.
Justification: This project will serve numerous County
agencies, at a central location. The Buildings and Grounds
Department provides maintenance and repair services for all
county school facilities which serve over 9,000 students, in
addition to vehicle fleet maintenance for other County
departments..
Construction Schedule: Not available.
Third County High School
Description: The project involves the construction of a high
school for grades 9-12 to serve 1,500 students. The school will
occupy approximately 70 acres and consist of a facility
containing approximately 240,000 square feet. The site
selected for the project is part of a 128 -acre site owned by the
school division which was purchased for a future high school.
It is located adjacent to Redbud Run Elementary School. and
approximately 1.5 miles from the intersection of Route 7 and
Interstate 81.
Capital Cost: $32,000,000
Debt Service: $3,888,513
Justification: The school will provide space for 1.500 students
in grades 9-12, to satisfy projected student population increases.
Construction Schedule: Begin planning in FY -99. complete
construction in FY -2002.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
PRIORITY 5
Page 11
New Elementary School, Back Creek District
Description: The project involves the construction of an
elementary school for approximately 550 students in grades K-5
on a 15-20 acre site. At this time, the exact location of this
proposed school has not been determined.
Capital Cost: $9,700,000.
Debt Service: $4,581,872.
Justification: The project will serve 550 students in grades K-5
who reside in the Back Creek district. The project will provide
additional classroom space for increased student enrollment.
Construction Schedule: Begin planning in FY -2000.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Page 12
Frederick County
Parks and Recreation
Department
Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Bicycle Facility
Description: A 2.45 mile bicycle facility to serve several
residential areas in southern Frederick County. This bicycle
facility has been designed to link the developments and park
land on the north side of Rt. 277 with Sherando Park and the
high school on the south side of Rt. 277.
Capital Cost: $318,387
Justification: The initial trail development will provide a direct
benefit for 642 planned or completed housing units. with the
potential future expansion of the trail system impacting over
3,669 housing units. Sherando Park and Sherando High School
represents a focal point of activity for the residents living in the
urban development area of southern Frederick County. The
proposed bicycle facility appears to be an excellent way to
provide safe access to and from these facilities for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -97.
PRIORITY 2
Parkland in Western Frederick County
Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the
County.
Capital Cost: $1,154,772
Justification: This project would be used by the entire
Frederick County population. The parkland acquisition would
reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for
our the Frederick County service area.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -97.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
PRIORITY 3
PRIORITY 4
Page 13
Open Play Area - Clearbrook Park
Description: This project consists of an assortment of facilities
to compliment the existing Clearbrook Park. It includes two
areas within the Clearbrook Park site. First, the area on the
southside of the lake includes: parking, repairs to existing
shelters, access paths, and landscaping. Second, the area
adjacent to the water tower includes: parking, picnic shelter. 6
horseshoe pits, croquet turf, shuffleboard, volleyball court, and
refurbishing the existing concession stand. This project was
listing in previous years as two separate projects.
Capital Cost: $416,992
Justification: These facilities will provide recreational
opportunities for the Clearbrook Park service area, reducing the
gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas
and the number which is needed to meet the minimum
standards for our service area. Clearbrook Park, currently
owned by Frederick County, offers the best location for this
development.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -98.
Softball Complex - Sherando
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic
facilities to compliment the existing Sherando Park facilities. It
includes: 2 softball fields, an access road, parking spaces, and
landscaping.
Capital Cost: $422,328
Justification: This facility would provide recreational
opportunities for the entire Frederick County area. In addition
to its use as a recreational facility, it will be used by the
Frederick County school system. Presently, there are ten
softball/baseball fields within the county's regional park
system. Eight of the existing fields must serve a dual purpose
of facilitating youth baseball as well as youth and adult softball
programs. With the increased usage of these fields. it has
become increasingly difficult to facilitate these programs. This
project is needed in order for the Parks and Recreation
Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth
baseball and adult softball nrnurnmc,
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -98.
r reaericx county 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Page 14
PRIORITY 5 11 Baseball Field Renovation - Sherando
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic
facilities to compliment the existing Sherando Park facilities. It
includes: the renovation of 4 existing ball fields. renovation of
existing restrooms, and access roads and walks.
Capital Cost: $662,755
Justification: This facility, presently serving as both youth
baseball and adult softball fields, and would be used by the
"Little League" programs within the Sherando Park service
area. In addition to its use as a recreational facility. the athletic
complex will also be used by the Frederick County school
system. This project cannot be completed until the Softball
Complex - Sherando is completed.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -98.
PRIORITY 6 Field House
Description: The 29,900 square foot Athletic Field House
would include an office and storage area, locker rooms_ parking
lot, and a 25,000 square foot multipurpose area. This facility
would be located on property owned by the county and ,vould
cover five to seven acres. The multipurpose area would have
three basketball/volleyball courts, a walking track. a tennis
wall, and provide the opportunity to offer a wide range of
activities and special events for all ages and interest Groups.
The location has not been determined; best location for this
facility may be within one of the County's existing parks.
Could possibly be built in concert with the Indoor Pool project.
Capital Cost: $1,542,000
Justification: Since the inception of the Parks and Recreation
Department, the department has relied solely on the use of the
county public schools to house our program offerings. During
the early years, the department offered a small number of
programs that required limited facility use. Currently. the
department offers over 500 programs annually and. at the same
time, space within the schools has been more difficult to secure.
This has created a situation where the department no longer has
the ability to meet the demands of the county residents. Haying
a facility such as this would also assist the area in its effort to
attract new business to the community. This facility would be
available to all area residents.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -99.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Page 15
PRIORITY 7 II TennisBasketball Complex - Clearbrook
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic
facilities to compliment the existing Clearbrook Park facilities.
It includes: 8 tennis courts, 2 racquetball courts. 2 basketball
courts, a shelter, parking, and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $533,586
Justification: Located in Clearbrook Park, these facilities
would be available to all county residents. Currently_ there are
no tennis, racquetball, or basketball courts in the Clearbrook
Park area, and with over 150,000 park visitors annually, these
facilities are needed.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -99.
PRIORITY 8 Indoor Pool and Support Facilities
Description: This project consists of a six -lane. 25 -yard indoor
swimming pool designed for competitive and recreational use.
Locker rooms, office and a reception area are also included in
the proposal. The location has not been determined: best
location for this facility may be within one of the County's
existing parks. Could possibly be built in concert with the Field
House project as they would compliment one another.
Capital Cost: $1,953,200
Justification: Currently, there are no indoor pools in Frederick
County. This facility would be available to all county residents
for recreational use and to the student population for physical
education instruction and competitive swim teams. The general
public has made several inquires as to the possibility of the
development of an indoor pool to serve the county's residents.
This facility will offer all county residents the opportunity to
take advantage of year-round recreational swimming and enable
this department to offer valuable programming to county
residents. Also, county high schools would be able to use this
facility for instructional and competitive swimming.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -2000.
PRIORITY 9 II Soccer Complex - Sherando
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Page 16
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic
facilities to compliment the existing Sherando Park facilities. It
includes: 3 soccer fields, access paths, restrooms/concession. 2
picnic shelters, landscaping, and lighting.
Capital Cost: $1,127,692
Justification: This facility will be used by the entire Frederick
County area. In addition to its use as a recreational facility, the
facility will also be used by the Frederick County school
system.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -2001.
PRIORITY 10 Maintenance Compound and Office - Sherando
Description: This project will consist of a 1,200 square foot
office and 4,000 square foot storage sheds for the Sherando
Park operations.
Capital Cost: $168,539
Justification: This facility will enable the county to maintain
its equipment and facilities in a more responsible and effective
manner. The additional responsibility to maintain the outdoor
facilities at Sherando High School also increases the need for
more storage, maintenance and office space.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -2001.
PRIORITY 11 Tennis/Picnic Area - Sherando
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic
facilities to compliment the existing Sherando Park facilities. It
includes: 3 tennis courts, 4 racquetball courts, restrooms /
concession area, 4 picnic shelters, 'a playground area, access
paths, and parking.
Capital Cost: $612,495
Justification: These facilities would be used by the Sherando
Park service area and the residents of southwestern Frederick
County. Although tennis courts have been included at
Sherando High School, the department feels that it is important
to include three tennis courts on park property for general use
while the school courts are being used for school activities.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -2001
PRIORITY 12 II Shelter/Stage Seating - Clearbrook
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
PRIORITY 13
Page 17
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic
facilities to compliment the existing Clearbrook Park facilities.
It includes: refurbishing existing restrooms, access paths.
development of a shelter with performance stage, and lake
renovations.
Capital Cost: $326,659
Justification: This facility would be used by the entire
Winchester -Frederick County area. Presently, there are no
facilities to accommodate cultural programs within the county's
park system. This project is needed to provide a facility for
cultural activities.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -2001.
Skateboard Park
Description: This project will consist of: a skateboard bowl.
half pipe and open skate area, and vehicle parking. The
facility's location has yet to be determined.
Capital Cost: $200,000
Justification: This facility will enable the county to provide
additional recreation opportunities to its citizens: a recreational
facility that has been requested for the community's youth.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -2001.
rrreaencx county 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Page 18
Handley Regional
Library
PROJECT II Frederick County Library
Description: A library in Frederick County will enable the
Handley Regional Library to provide service to the growing
population in southern Frederick County and to provide
adequate books, services, and seating for the population served
by the regional system. On a lot of 7 acres, the building will be
34,000 square feet and will be expanded in stages ultimately up
to 50,000 square feet. The consulting firm hired by the
Handley Library Board to provide a master plan for the librar}'
through the year 2010 has estimated the construction. not
including land or library materials costs but including furniture
and equipment, would cost approximately $4,659.000. (This
estimate was generated in 1993. A 5% inflation factor has been
added, bringing the current estimate to $4,891,950.) Books and
other library materials for an adequate opening day collection
of around 80,000 items would cost almost $3,150.000. A site
has been designated by the Board of Supervisors at the
intersection of Macedonia Church Road and Lakeside Drive.
Capital Cost: $8,041,485
Justification: The Handley Library currently has over 14.500
registered users from Frederick County. Frederick County
residents checked out 59.06% of all library materials during the
month of July 1996. This number would rise dramatically with
a new, convenient location.
In order to meet the educational needs and the business
information needs of the area and to continue to foster literacy
and reading among the citizens it serves, the Handley Library
needs more space for books, children's programs. and seating
for children and adults. The library is well below state
standards in the areas of books per capita, in square footage per
capita, in seating per capita, and in periodicals per capita. The
current Handley Library building cannot contain enough books
and seating to meet state standards. A library in the County
will contribute to the welfare of the population by providing a
place for children to read, study, and prepare projects when
schools are closed as well as serve senior citizens. mothers with
young children, and individuals seeking health and consumer
information.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Page 19
ADDENDUM
Frederick County
Sanitation Authority
Sewer and Water
Project
Priority List
(Not funded by the General
Fund)
PROJECT 1
Water Transmission Lines
A) Miller Heights Water Distribution Line
Description: Install 2,640 linear feet of eight -inch
water line.
Estimated Costs: $81,000
Justification: Provide potable water and fire protection
to seventeen existing residences.
Construction Schedule: Begin December 1996.
B) Route 50 - Victory Road Water Loop - Project 2
Description: Install 2,900 linear feet of twelve -inch
water main.
Estimated Costs: $90,000
Construction Schedule: Contingent on availability of
funds.
C) Stonewall - Lee Avenue Water Loop
Description: Install 7,900 linear feet of twelve -inch
water line connecting Stonewall Industrial Park and Lee
Avenue.
Estimated Costs: $330,000
Justification: Provide water service and fire protection
to commercial and industrial land on the -vvest side of
Route 11 between Lee Avenue and Stonewall Industrial
Park. The line will provide a loop between the eater
storage tank in the Stonewall Industrial Park and Lee
Avenue and Fort Collier Industrial Park.
Construction Schedule: Contingent on availability of
funds.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Frederick County
Public Works
Department
Landfill Project List
(Not funded by the General
Fund)
PROJECTI,
PROJECT 2
Page 20
Construction Debris Landfill
Description: This project will include the development of a
construction debris landfill adjacent to the existing sanitary
landfill. The permitting and design are ongoing. The Public
Works Department expects to receive a permit on or about May
1997. It is anticipated that development of three to five acres of
construction debris landfill space will occur in FY -96 to extend
the life of the existing Municipal Solid waste landfill.
Capital Cost: $800,000
Justification: The project will serve the citizens and businesses
located in Frederick County, Clarke County, and the Cite of
Winchester. The project is necessary to extend the life of the
MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) landfill. Construction Debris
(CD) landfill requirements are less stringent than Municipal
Solid Waste landfill requirements, hence, the project will create
additional CD capacity.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -96 and carry over into
FY -97.
Closure of Cells A and B, Phase I
Description: This project encompasses the closure of Cells A
and B, Phase I. This closure will be performed in accordance
with the details and guidelines set forth in Permit #529.
Capital Cost: $1,400,000
Justification: Required by the Department of Environmental
Quality. The project will serve the citizens of Frederick and
Clarke Counties as well as the City of Winchester for
approximately three to four years.
Construction Schedule: This project may be initiated in FY -96
to close out Cell A. The closure of Cell B will be initiated in
FY -96. Construction schedules will be dependent upon the
actual life of Cell B.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
PROJECT 3
PROJECT 4
Page 21
Landfill Development - Cell "A", Phase II - Five Acres
Description: This project includes the development of
approximately five acres of sanitary landfill space as outlined in
Permit #529, Phase II- Cell A. It is anticipated that this
development will have a life between two to three years in
combination with the existing Cell "D" of Phase II.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: Required by the Department of Environmental
Quality. The project will serve the citizens of Frederick and
Clarke Counties as well as the City of Winchester for
approximately three to four years.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -98. The commencement
of this construction will depend on the actual life of Cell -1)".
Phase I.
Installation of Active Gas Management Cells A and B,
Phase I
Description: This project encompasses the installation of an
active gas management system in conjunction with the closure
of Cells A and B. The proposed system may be limited to
recovery wells and candle flares or may be expanded to include
a total recovery system connected to a generator or boiler
system.
Capital Cost: $500,000
Justification: This project will serve the citizens and
businesses located in Frederick and Clarke Counties. and the
City of Winchester. It is required to meet the Federal Clean Air
Act standards.
Construction Schedule: This project may be initiated in FY -97
in conjunction with the closure of Cells A and B.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Winchester Regional
Airport Project List
(Funded by contributions
from the federal, state, and
local governments. Local
contributors may include
Frederick, Warren, Clarke,
Shenandoah Counties, and
the City of Winchester.)
PROJECT 1
PROJECT 2
Page 22
Land Acquisition - South Side RPZ, Phase II
Description: Acquire approximately 15 acres of land along the
south side of Route 645 to complete Runway Protection Zone
required by the Federal Aviation Administration for an
Instrument Landing Slope Approach.
Capital Cost: $625,000 90/8/2 - FAA/State/Local
Justification: Provides land required to establish Obstruction
Free Area for the Instrument Landing System installed in FY -
95. Provides additional land for the relocation of Route 645 as
part of the Airport Master Plan implemented in 1992.
Construction Schedule: Phase I began in FY -95. This phase
of land acquisition will continue through FY -98.
Route 645 Relocation - Design Only
Description: The design for the relocation of Route 645 wi 11
enable the airport to move forward with its plans for activating
a precision approach to Runway 32. The relocation of Route
645 will remove the final obstruction from the approach.
Capital Cost: $125,000 90/8/2 - FAA/State/Local
Justification: By removing this obstruction (Route 645). the
approach minimums can be lowered enabling the airport to
handle aircraft in almost all weather conditions.
Construction Schedule: Initiate and complete the relocation
designs in FY -98.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
PROJECT 3
PROJECT 4
Page 23
Route 645 Relocation - Construction Phase
Description: The construction of Route 645 relocated.
Capital Cost: $1,400,000 90/8/2 - FAA/State/Local
Justification: By removing this obstruction (Route 645). the
approach minimums can be lowered enabling the airport to
handle aircraft in almost all weather conditions.
Construction Schedule: Initiate and complete the construction
phase in FY -99.
Land Acquisition, Bufflick Road, Phase II
Description: The acquisition of land along Bufflick Road to
further advance the airport's compliance with FAA compatible
land use criteria.
Capital Cost: $775,000 90/8/2 - FAA/State/Local
Justification: This acquisition is anticipated to bring all land
uses within the airport environment into FAA compatible land
use criteria.
Construction Schedule: Initiate and complete acquisition in
FY -99.
r-reaencx county 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
Regional Adult
Detention Center
Project List
(Not entirely funded by the
General Fund)
PROJECTI.
Page 24
Regional Secure Juvenile Detention Center
Description: The Clarke -Frederick -Winchester Regional Jail
Board proposes to construct a 32 bed regional juvenile
detention facility. It shall be constructed adjacent to the pre-
release facility, located in Fort Collier Industrial Park, adjacent
to Brook Road and Fort Collier Road. The property and facility
shall be owned by the CFW Regional Jail Board, however, it
shall be operated by a regional juvenile detention commission,
consisting of representative from Clarke County, Frederick
County, the City of Winchester, Page County, Shenandoah
County, and Warren County.
Capital Cost: $4,031,377
Justification: Review of needs assessment indicates that a
regional juvenile detention facility is necessary.
Construction Schedule: Complete in FY -96.
Frederick County 1997-98 Capital Improvements Plan
1997 FREDERICK COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
EVALUATION FORM
LISTED BY DEPARTMENT; IN ORDER OF DEPARTMENT PRIORITY
CRITERION Conform to Health,
and Comp. Plan Safety,
Welfare
WEIGHT 3 4
Legally Distribute Economic Related Public
Required Services Impact to Other Support TOTAL
Projects
4 2--- 2 3 3
New Library
2/6
2/8
0/0
4/8
2/4
0/0
3/9
35
'S 6L . F.,.... .
SYSTEM.:.
r►Gainesbora;Elementw r.SclaooL._
/�, .
2/8
0/0
112
2/4
I /3
113726
Administration Building Renovations
ansportatioP/MalntenancelRTarefiause
2 !.6
2/ 8
Q! 0
I f 2
3/ 6
2! 6
1/ 3
Third County High School
2/6
2/8
0/0
2/4
3/6
I/3
I/3
, ;
216'
218
0/0
316
2/4
1/3
I/3
30
ARKS AND RECREA7I0>!1 F. -
Bikeway System
4/12
2/8
0/0
1/2
1/2
2/6
2/6
36
-
X319
I!4
0/0 ;
4/8
1 /2
1 /3
•
2/6
32
Open Play Area - CB
3/9
114
0/0
3/6
1/2
1/3
2/6
30
Siaftball Complex SP _
3/9
1/4
0/0,
I' /.2.
1/2
1/3
2/6
26
Baseball Field Renovations - SP
'
2/ 6
1/ 4
0/ 0
1/ 2
1/ 2
1/ 3
2/ 6
23
irwld House - ` _
2 / 6
114
010
2 C4
1/2
1 / 3
2/6
25
Tennis/Basketball Complex - CB
3/ 9
1/4
0/0
316
1/2
2/6
1/3 1
30
Indoor Pool Facilities
216
I' ! 4
0/0
Z!4
1/2
2/6
2/6
28
Soccer Complex - SP
,.
3/9
1,/,4
0/0
3/6
1/2
113
2/6
30
Maintenance Comound - SP
p
If3
1.14
0/0
0/0
3/6
3/9
1/3
25
Tennis/Picnic Area - SP
3/9
1/4
'0/0
1/2
0/0
2/6
2/6
27
'.
S1ielter,. Stage Seating -'CB
3'/ 9
1" % 4
0/0
3/b
2/4
2/6
2/6
25
Skateboard Park
113
114
0/0
112
112
113
2/6
20
AfRPORT
Land Acquisition - South Side RPZ
2/6
2/8
3/12
1/2
2/4
2 / 6
2/6
Land Aquisition, Bufflick.Road
2/6
2/8
3/12
1/2
2/4
2/6
Route 645 Relocation - Design
2/ 6
1/4
1/4
0/0
1/2
2/6
Route 645 Relocation - Construction
2./ 6
1 !4
1/ 4
0/ 0
1/ 2
2/ 6
rk
0 12000 24000 36000 48000 2, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21
Frederick County
1997-98 Capital
Improvements Plan
Project Locations
(in order of prioritization)
1 Airport Land Acquisition
2 Airport Land Acquisition
3 Bicycle Facility
4 New Library
5 Shelter, Stage Seating — CB
6 Park Land
7 Transportation/ Maintenance/
Warehouse
8 Third County High School
9 New Elementary School
—Back Creek
10 Open Play Area — CB
11 Tennis/ Basketball Complex — CB
12 Soccer Complex — SP
13 Indoor Pool Facilities (location
to be determined)
14 Tennis/ Picnic Area — SP
15 New Gainesboro Elementary School
16 Softball Complex — SP
17 Route 645 Relocation — Design
18 Route 645 Relocation
— Construction
19 Maintenance Compound — SP
20 Field House (location to be
determined)
21 Baseball Field Renovations — SP
22 Skateboard Park (location to be
determined)
SFrederick County PlntWnp L development
Vmchester, Virginia
December 1996
e COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director w
RE: Discussion Regarding Single Family Zero Lot Line Design Standards
DATE: January 2, 1997
Staff received a request from Mr. David Shore, Broker, to amend Section 165-65E of the Zoning
Ordinance. This section of the Zoning Ordinance provides dimensional and design standards for
single family detached zero lot line developments. Mr. Shore has requested that the language
prohibiting windows on the zero lot line side be eliminated. W. Shore feels that it is important to
have windows, particularly for single family dwellings of a smaller square footage, to provide
adequate light and air. Mr. Shore believes that the privacy afforded to the homeowner through this
standard could be resolved through the use of window blinds or shades.
Staff contacted the members of the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
to discuss this request. Three subcommittee members felt that the language should be eliminated, two
subcommittee members felt that the standard should be eliminated only if the construction of the
window or any other architectural feature did not extend into the ten foot maintenance easement
along the zero lot line side, and one subcommittee member felt that the standard should remain as
written.
Enclosed is a copy of the request from Mr. Shore, as well as a copy of Section 165-65E for your
review. Staff would like to discuss this request with the full Planning Commission to determine all
concerns prior to advertisement for public hearing.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-000
7, 1996
Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planner H
Frederick Co. Planning Dept.
107 North Kent St.
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Mr. Wvatt:
As I mentioned in our telephone conversation yesterday, I am a real estate broker
with RE/MAX Team Realty in the county. I represent Faith Builders, who are currently
building in a subdivision in the Stephens City area called Deer Run of Sherando. This is
a patio home community that also utilizes single family detached zero lot line zoning.
We have currently built and sold two homes and have started 3 more. We have options
on 12 more home sites. The problem we ran into with the last three homes is language in
the zoning regulations f165-65 E. - Single- family detached zero lot line residence -
"Windows are prohibited on the lot line side". The homes built to this concept (patio
homes/zero lot line) will continue to be smaller dwellings that sell at the lower end of the
price scale. They represent a good value for first time home buyers, single people, seniors
and the handicapped. The smaller the square footage offered, the more difficult to provide
a perception of light and space. Sunlight and access to fresh air via windows are qualities
desired by everyone, not just owners of large homes. These type homes are a good
addition to the housing stock of Frederick Co. They are an excellent alternative to the now
over -built townhouses. I expect the prohibiting of windows was done for some privacy
reasons, but could it be that persons occupying this type of home might deal with this
issue themselves, if they choose, via window coverings rather than have zoning codes
decide for them.
We respectfully request the appropriate committee review this code language and consider
our request that it be removed. We would be available for any request to discuss this issue
further. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerel
David Shore, Broker
Agent for Faith Builders
�,.f5F Team Realty
146 Garber Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Office: (703) 667-2400
Fax: (703) 662-3192
Each Office Independently Owned and Operated
§ 165-65 ZONING § 165-65
(6) Minimum lot width at the road right-of-way shall be thirty (30)
feet.
(7) Minimum off-street parking shall be two (2) per unit.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: thirty-five (35) feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: twenty (20) feet.
SINGLE-FAMILY
_ DETACHED
- 1 III,
..r
— rri
... �► r rr rrrr
E. Single-family detached -zero lot line. A "single-family detached zero lot
line residence" shall be a single-family residence on an individual lot.
The building is set on one (1) of the side property lines, with a
maintenance easement on the adjoining lot. Windows are prohibited
on the lot line side.
(1) Minimum lot area shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet.
(2) Maximum lot area shall be seven thousand (7,000) square feet.
(3) Maximum impervious surface ratio per lot shall be forty -
hundredths (0.40).
(4) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Setback from the road right-of-way: twenty-five (25) feet.
16587
§ 165-65
F
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
§ 165-65
(b) Rear yard: twenty-five (25) feet.
(5) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
(6) Minimum off-street parking shall be two (2) per unit.
(7) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: thirty-five (35) feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: twenty (20) feet.
ZERO
LOT L
(8) Supplemental regulations:
(a) The opposite side yard must be maintained clear of any
obstructions other than a three-foot eaves encroachment,
swimming pools, normal landscaping, removable patio covers
extending no more than five (5) feet or garden walls or fences
not to exceed nine (9) feet in height.
(b) The zero lot line side must not be adjacent to a road right -of-
way -
(c) A maintenance easement of eight (8) to ten (10) feet in width
must be obtained on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line side.
Patio house. A "patio house" shall be a single-family detached or
semidetached residence with one (1) dwelling unit from ground to roof.
having individual outside access. A portion of the lot to the rear of the
r
llk;