PC 04-03-96 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
APRIL 3, 1996
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes of March 6, 1996 ....................................... A
2) Bi -monthly Report .................................................... B
3) Committee Reports ................................................... C
4) Citizen Comments ......................................... . ......... D
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5) Conditional Use Permit #002-96 of the Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, to
operate a licensed home for adults and adult care facility. This property is located at 549
Valley Mill Road and is identified with PIN 55-A-56 in the Stonewall District.
(Mr. Miller)......................................................... E
6) An Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV,
Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-23, Setback Requirements. The
proposed amendment will establish survey standards for primary structures and accessory
structures, greater than 500 square feet, which are located five feet or less from building
setback lines.
(Mr. Wyatt) ....................................... ................ F
7) Other
File. K \\1'P\CHIN\96C0VERS\PC4 03 AGN
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on March
6, 1996.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were• Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.,
Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District;
Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; John H.
Light, Stonewall District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Jimmie K.
Ellington, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M.
Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook,
Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; and Richard
C. Ours, Opequon District
Staff Present Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary, W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator,
Evan A Wyatt, Planner II; Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I; Michael Ruddy, Planner I; Kris C. Tierney,
Deputy Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
01
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 02/29/96 Mtg.
Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed two issues—telecommunication towers
and buffer and screening requirements. He said that both of these items will be brought before the
Commission in the near future.
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
Mr. Romine reported that the EDC is continuing with their discussions of water,
sewer, and rail accessibility.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Conditional Use Permit #001-96 of Howard A. And Sheila A. Pohn to establish a Cottage
Occupation for a blacksmithing business at 709 Cattail Road (Rt. 731). This property is
identified with PIN #21-A-18 in the Gainesboro District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller said that the applicant desires to use an accessory building on his property
to produce ornamental iron products. Mr. Miller said that a blacksmithing forge is currently set up
in a concrete block building on the property adjacent to the residence. He said that the structures are
located approximately 3/4 mile from Cattail Run Road (Rt. 73 1) and are not visible from the road or
any adjoining property. Mr. Miller described some faulty electrical and stove pipe work and felt it
would be appropriate for the fire marshal to inspect this aspect of the facility to ensure a safe
operation.
Mr. Howard A Pohn, the applicant, said that he will correct the electrical wiring and
will install the proper spark arresting mechanism on the stove pipe and has no problem having the
appropriate inspectors out to his property to inspect the work.
There were no citizen comments.
The Planning Commission had no particular areas of concern with the proposed
3
conditional use permit and upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #001-96 of Howard A. and Sheila A. Pohn for a
Cottage Occupation for a blacksmithing operation at 709 Cattail Road (Rt. 73 1) with the following
conditions:
1) All review agency comments must be complied with prior to operation and on a continuing
basis.
2) If electrical power is required for the accessory structures, the proper installation of wiring
must be made and inspected.
3) Any expansion of the use will require a new CUP application.
Rezoning Application #001-96 of Frederick Mall Land Trust (Pine Ridge Estates) to rezone
26.14 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 29
Single -Family Residential Lots. This property is located on the east side of Apple Pie Ridge
(Rt. 739) and the north side of Glentawber Drive and is identified with P.I.N. 42-A-198 in the
Gainesboro District.
Action - Recommended Denial
Mr. Tierney gave the background information and reviewing agency comments for
the rezoning. He said that VDOT has commented that there will be an added impact to the Route
5221739 intersection and VDOT also notes that if the development proceeds, additional right-of-way
will need to be dedicated along Apple Pie Ridge Road for future widening. Mr. Tierney noted that
the most recent traffic count (for the section of Rt. 739 from Rt. 522 to Rt. 673) available is from
1993 at 2,143 average vehicle trips per day (tpd) and the anticipated traffic from 28 new homes
would be an additional 280 tpd, an increase of roughly 13% over the 1993 count. Mr. Tierney
pointed out that the School Board felt there would be impacts to the schools and they requested this
be addressed.
Mr. Tierney continued, stating that the property is located in the Urban Development
Area (UDA) and lies along the edge of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), with sewer and
water available across Route 739. He said that the applicant has proffered that there will be no
entrances on Apple Pie Ridge Road; but rather, the lots will front or have access to Glentawber Road,
which lies along the southern edge of the parcel. He said that the applicant has proffered a limit of
no more than 29 single-family lots, including the existing residence; they have also proffered
$3,591.00 per unit for schools and parks & recreation and $20.00 per unit for fire and rescue.
Mr. Tierney concluded by saying that the Planning Department has received a number
of letters, petitions, and phone calls expressing concern or opposition.
Mr. Harry Benham, attorney representing the land owner, Mrs. Mary Ellen Pope, said
that Mrs. Pope could create approximately five or six two -acre lots under the present zoning; her
other choice is to rezone and subdivide the property into approximately 26-28 lots, which would be
about '/z acre in size, taking into account streets, sewer and water extension, and buffer areas. Mr.
Benham said that Mrs. Pope chose to rezone because it gives her some financial benefit and also
generates funds for improvements to the property. He said that if the property is rezoned, she would:
1) eliminate any new driveways onto Apple Pie Ridge --a road would be constructed parallel to Apple
Pie Ridge which would feed into the frontage road located on the south side of the property; 2)
provide public water and sewer; 3) improve the appearance of the property and create a
screen/buffer by planting trees beginning at the frontage road running along Apple Pie Ridge to an
existing 60' right-of-way; and 4) construct a berm along Apple Pie Ridge to aid in screening. Mr.
Benham said that Mrs. Pope is also willing to establish some controls on the development of the land
--only single-family residences would be permitted; standard controls for signs and setbacks would
be established, and restrictions regulating the type of construction would also be established.
Members of the Commission had questions for the staff regarding the UDA and
SWSA boundaries and where the closest undeveloped large tracts of land were located.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came
forward to speak:
Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, former Board of Supervisors Chairman and former member
of the Planning Commission, came forward and stated that he was a member of the Commission and
Board when the UDA and SWSA concept was developed and he wanted to provide some information
for the record as to what was possible regarding this proposal. Mr. Stiles described the boundaries
of the UDA and the SWSA. He stated that in order to extend sewer and water beyond this property,
a number of policy decisions would have to be made, including changing the scope of the SWSA and
changing the scope of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stiles said that if the Board accepts
the applicant's proffer that only single-family homes will be constructed, it will be legally binding and
will forever preclude development at a higher density. Mr. Stiles also commented that considering
the costs involved to develop this property, he did not foresee it possible to build low or moderate
income housing on the property.
W. Bernard Marsteller, President of the Spring Valley Property Owners Association,
stated that the density proposed was too high for the size of the parcel in question and compared to
the size of lots already established. He said that the local residents chose this area to live because of
its low density. Mr. Marsteller said that Glentawber Road is the only ingress/egress out of Spring
Valley onto Rt. 739 and therefore, traffic is one of their major concerns. He said that they are also
concerned about the safety of children on school buses. Mr. Marsteller presented a petition
representing 100% of the property owners of Spring Valley who were opposed to the rezoning.
F1
Mr. Jimmie K. Ellington noted at this point for the record that he was a property
owner in Spring Valley, however, his name does not appear on the petition submitted by Mr.
Marsteller.
Ms. Diane Alexander, resident in Spring Valley, said that she and her husband chose
this area of Frederick County to live because it was rural. Ms. Alexander said she was appalled at
the idea of putting 28 homes in this tiny cornfield and she felt it would ruin the area.
Mr. David Newlin, resident of Foxlair subdivision, presented a petition of opposition
from the residents of Foxlair subdivision. Mr. Newlin expressed the following concerns from Foxlair
residents: 1) the traffic congestion --the sharp turn at the entrance to Spring Valley on Apple Pie
Ridge presents a safety problem; few upgrades to the road have occurred; the addition to James
Wood High School will add more youthful driver traffic; 2) the property in question lies on the
boundary of the SWSA and UDA, so decisions about the property could go either way and the
County should honor the integrity of the covenants of neighboring subdivisions; 3) impacts on
schools; 4) the tax burden on the constituents is being fueled by the growth mode experienced in
Frederick County in the past couple decades; this growth is causing a loss in quality of living; there
is no infrastructure or community support for more growth; the property in question should be
developed under the existing zoning; 5) resentment that the County Planning Department was
recommending approval of the rezoning before listening to public input; 6) public representatives'
obligation should be to the taxpayers and constituents and not to developers who are seeking financial
gain at the expense of the residents.
Dr. Jerome Boyar, an Apple Pie Ridge resident, stated that the proposal will adversely
effect Glentawber Road, Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School, Apple Pie Ridge Road, and property
values in the entire area. Dr. Boyar said that this area is one of the most beautiful, low density areas
in Frederick County and it should remain that way. He said that there was no way anyone could place
28 houses in that small area and disguise it and make it look good, no matter how many trees were
planted.
Ms. Donna Barrens, resident of McGuire Hills, asked for a count of the number of
people present who were in opposition to the rezoning, for the record. (estimate recorded at end of
discussion)
Mr. Robert Hess, resident of Apple Pie Ridge Road, spoke in opposition for several
reasons: he had safety concerns due to increased traffic congestion --he said that it was not unusual
to wait in traffic at the Rt. 522/Rt. 739 intersection between 7:30 a.m.-8:15 a.m. for five to six
changes of the traffic light; he felt that road improvements would be required to handle increased
traffic; and he felt that pedestrian access to the school properties would need to be addressed. Mr.
Hess presented photographs and a video of the traffic congestion taken as school buses were
departing the area.
Mr. Roger Koontz, former principal of Apple Pie Ridge School, spoke about the
C�
heavy traffic in this area. He said that it was extremely dangerous for school children and school
buses and he felt that the corner of Apple Pie Ridge and Route 522 was probably the worst
intersection in Frederick County. Mr. Koontz said that he was Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
when the Sanitation Authority installed the water line for the school and to serve the Sunnyside area.
He said that any reserve that might be in it is pre -committed to the Sunnyside area. Mr. Koontz felt
that a precedent would be set if this property was allowed access to the water line and development
would continue all the way back to the foot of Gold's Hill.
Mr. Bob Grogg, resident on Apple Pie Ridge Road for the past 20 years, said that a
sense of community was lacking in this proposal and discussion. He said that the applicant had not
looked at the type of housing existing there now—nice homes on two to five acre parcels. Mr. Grogg
said that he was not opposed to development of the property, but it should be consistent with what
is existing there now.
Mr. Bob Godfrey, resident on Apple Pie Ridge, spoke in opposition to the rezoning.
Mr. Godfrey said that he counted 165 people who were present in the court room and he felt the vast
majority of those persons were in opposition. Mr. Godfrey felt this rezoning would be detrimental
to the quality of life for his family and other residents of the community.
Mr. Jerry Bassler, resident on Apple Pie Ridge since 1974, requested that the
Commission maintain and protect the rural character of this neighborhood. He was concerned that
a precedent would be set if the County allowed the extension of the water line and subdivision of
smaller lots. He asked the Commission to consider the investment made by the residents of the
community and their choice to live in a rural neighborhood.
Ms. Linda Martinson, resident at 211 Woodcrest Drive in the Beaver -Whitacre
Subdivision, was in opposition to the rezoning for all the reasons mentioned by the other citizens that
came forward. Ms. Martinson presented a petition of opposition with 166 signatures, including
members of the Apple Pie Ridge School faculty and administration and James Wood High School
teachers.
Mr. Andrew Steidinger, resident of McGuire Hills, asked the Commissioners to
consider the number of people present in opposition and to carry out the wishes of the constituency.
Dr. Gregory Eads, resident at 214 Glentawber Drive, felt the applicant needed to
present a compelling reason to rezone in order for the Commission to approve the rezoning. He felt
the rezoning should be denied if the residents in the area were opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. Dick Burn, resident of the old Lewis house located approx. '/s mile north of the
Pope property, said that his family chose this home because of its charm, potential, and the unique
country and rural atmosphere of Apple Pie Ridge. Mr. Burn felt the rezoning would negatively affect
the quality of life in that area.
7
Mr. Tim Dayhuff, resident of Apple Pie Ridge, stated that the Route 739/Route 522
intersection needs to be improved, even without further development. He said that the congestion
there is terrible, both in the mornings and the evenings. Mr. Dayhuff felt that if this property is
developed, it should be consistent with the existing development in that area.
Ms. Jennifer Crovatin, resident of Apple Pie Ridge, felt the proposal was not
compatible with existing development.
Mr. Nicholas Gemma, resident of Cottonwood Subdivision, felt the rezoning would
negatively affect the quality of life on Apple Pie Ridge.
Ms. Kathy Thompson, resident on Glentawber Road, felt it was interesting that the
applicant was proposing to buffer the property with trees to hide from view what they apparently
don't want to look at either.
Ms. Katy Anderson, resident of Apple Pie Ridge, said that this proposal does not fit
in with the existing development in this area which consists of two to five acre lots. Ms. Anderson
felt the proposed density would negatively affect the aesthetics and the history of the area.
Ms. B. J. Manuel Doherty, resident at the intersection of Gold's Hill Road and Apple
Pie Ridge, said that her father purchased the 220 -year old stone house in which she lives. Ms.
Doherty thought the proposal would negatively effect the quality of life in the area.
Ms. Jody Heaps, resident on Warm Springs Road, said that she commutes in and out
of town many times a day via Apple Pie Ridge Road. She said that there are certain times of the day,
especially when school begins and ends, that she avoids Apple Pie Ridge, because of the traffic, and
has to take alternative roads that are unpaved and unsafe. Ms. Heaps felt the proposed rezoning
would cause even more traffic congestion.
Ms. Becky Morrison, resident on Green Spring Road, came forward to speak on
behalf of her family and parents, Mr. and Mrs. Harry C. Stuart, Jr. of Apple Pie Ridge. Ms.
Morrison said that her family is opposed and feels it will destroy the nature of Apple Pie Ridge.
Mr. John Anderson, resident of Apple Pie Ridge, said that it was his understanding
that a baseball stadium is coming to James Wood High School and if this takes place, it will add to
the traffic congestion. Mr. Anderson said that most of the people that have moved to this area within
the last 20 years have done so because of the nature of the area and the two to five acre lots.
Ms. Gina Lowder, resident at 195 Glentawber Lane, came forward to state her
opposition to the rezoning.
Ms. Mary Gillman, resident at 1208 Apple Pie Ridge Road, spoke about the terrible
traffic congestion on Apple Pie Ridge Road.
8
Ms. Rebecca M. Tavish, resident of Foxlair subdivision, said that she moved to this
area because it was so aesthetically pleasing and would like for it to remain that way. She was happy
to see such a large turnout of persons voicing their opposition.
Mr. Don Stotler, resident of McGuire Hills, said that he and his wife moved here
because of the beauty of the area. Mr. Stotler was opposed to the requested rezoning, however, he
had no problems with Mrs. Pope developing her property as long as it was similar to the lot sizes of
the existing subdivisions.
Ms. Ann Grogg, resident of Apple Pie Ridge for the past 20 years, said that she saw
no advantages to the kind of rezoning that is being requested. She felt that the proposed proffer
would not cover the cost of one child in the County's school system for one year. Ms. Grogg asked
the Commission to consider their obligation to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Sager spoke regarding the cost of education and said that according to his
calculations, using 2.5 children per household and a total of 28 houses, the amount of the proffer
offered fell far short of the total amount needed to fund school expenses for those children.
Members of the Commission felt that the proposed development, at the density
requested, was inappropriate for this particular area because it was not compatible with existing
development and would have a negative impact on the character of the area. Commission members
noted that there were areas within the UDA for this kind of density, but not at the Apple Pie Ridge
location. It was noted that the sewer line was extended to this location by the Board of Supervisors
for the school system's use and then further extended to include the church. Commission members
also pointed out that VDOT had acknowledged that the proposed development would have a traffic
impact on the Route 739/ Route 522 intersection.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Ellington,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby deny Rezoning
Application #001-96 of Frederick Mall Land Trust (Pine Ridge Estates) to rezone 26.14 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for 29 single family residential lots by the
following majority vote:
YES (to deny): Ellington, Morris, Romine, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Light,
NO: Thomas
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light, the Commission
unanimously agreed to make the four petitions containing signatures of opposition, the four letters
of opposition, and the three pages of an informal count of the number of people present in opposition
(107 signatures) during the meeting a part of the official record and file.
Z
An Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV,
Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-37D, Zoning District Buffers
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt said that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce the amount of required
buffer distance in conjunction with specific performance design standards. He explained that the
performance design standards restrict all primary or accessory uses within the buffer zone and require
a full screen containing a continuous earth berm with plantings of a greater height than is currently
required.
Members of the Commission asked who would make the decision on the amount of
buffer reduction. Mr. Wyatt said that the amendment is not for a variable distance, but provides the
developer with a choice of two alteratives. Mr. Wyatt said that the existing requirement is for a full
screen with a 100' distance separation, however, within that 100' distance there could be accessory
uses, such as tractor trailer loading and staging. He said that if the developer determines that it is
more appropriate to utilize the space, he has the option of developing and reducing the buffer,
however, no accessory or primary uses would be allowed within the buffer. He said that if there is
a desire for a reduced buffer, the developer would have to adhere to the performance standards.
Mr. Wyatt noted that the buffer reduction would give the developer the potential to
use more of his property, however, in considering adjoining property uses, he would have to make
some concessions by removing uses that would normally be allowed in that area. He said that the
buffer reduction reduces wasted space by allowing the developer to build closer to the property line.
There were no citizen continents.
The Commission members spoke in favor of the amendment as proposed.
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 the amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code,
Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-3 7D, Zoning District Buffers, as follows:
165-37D Zoning District Buffers
(7) Land proposed to be developed in the Ml (Light Industrial) District and the M2 (Industrial
General) District may be permitted to have a reduced buffer distance that is consistent with
the required side or rear building setback line, provided that the following requirements are
10
met:
A. The property to be developed with a reduced buffer distance is part of an approved
master planned industrial park.
B. There are no primary or accessory uses within the reduced buffer distance area,
including driveways, access drives, outdoor storage areas, parking areas, staging
areas, loading areas and outdoor dumpster areas. All-weather surface fire lanes
necessary to meet the requirements of Chapter 90, Fire Prevention of the Code of
Frederick CouUV, Vir inia shall be exempt from this performance standard.
C. A full screen is required to be created within the reduced buffer distance area which
shall be comprised of a continuous earth berm that is six feet higher in elevation than
the highest elevation within the reduced buffer distance area and a double row of
evergreen trees that are a minimum of six feet in height and planted a maximum of
eight feet from center to center.
Master Development Plan #001-96 of Hill Valley to develop 26.123 acres of residential land for
54 single-family detached cluster homes. This property is located in the northwest corner of
Valley Mill Road and Greenwood Road and is identified with PIN 55 -A -56F in the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., engineering consultant with G. W. Clifford & Associates,
was representing the owner, Vera V. Dove. Mr. Maddox said that they have spent a considerable
amount of time with VDOT in determining a suitable entrance to the site, in light of the proposed
improvements scheduled for Greenwood Road. He said the entrance they are proposing, which has
been approved by VDOT's Design Section in Staunton, is not only useable today (by site distance
and state standards), but is also useable later, after Greenwood Road has been relocated. Mr.
Maddox presented VDOT's approval letter, along with a copy of the revised master development
plan (to substitute previously submitted plans). He then -described various features of the site,
including storm water management, roads, utility lines, etc. Mr. Maddox said that they were
proposing to keep a 3± acre section of the parcel, located at the southeast corner, out of the open
space to be conveyed to the property owners association because it is a potential area for road
construction impacts to occur.
Members of the Commission pointed out the concerns raised by the County Engineer.
There were concerns regarding the feasibility of proposed roads due to elevation differentials and a
request for grading plans for the entire subdivision, due to steep topographical conditions.
11
Mr. Maddox stated that all roads within the subdivision would be state -maintained and
all requirements of the County Engineer would be satisfied.
Members of the Commission asked how far the proposed entrance would be from the
proposed Valley Mill relocation. Mr. Maddox replied that it would be approximately 350' to 4001
,
noting that the distance is much further at the present time.
Mr. Lawrence came forward to present staff review comments. He said that the
master plan reviewed by staff and the reviewing agencies was not the same plan that was just
submitted by Mr. Maddox. He said that there were debates early on about where the entrance onto
Greenwood Road should be; and, apparently, VDOT and the applicant have decided upon an
appropriate entrance, but it has changed the master plan as previously submitted. Mr. Lawrence
raised the question of whether or not it was appropriate for the Commission to act on the revised plan
before the reviewing agencies had an opportunity to review it.
Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and the following persons came
forward to speak:
Mr. Mark E. Bozar, adjoining property owner at 457 Valley Mill Road, had questions
about the adequacy of the treatment facility to handle additional dwellings and where elevation
changes and property disturbances would take place.
Mr. Ralph Simmons, resident on Valley Mill Road, said that he was one of the
directors of the homeowners association. Mr. Simmons was opposed to approval of the master plan
because of the traffic on Valley Mill Road. Mr. Simmons said that the traffic on Valley Mill Road
is terribly congested. He added that his homeowners association was not notified of this proposal.
Members of the Commission were well aware of the traffic congestion in this area, but
noted that Greenwood Road was the number one priority project designated for county road
improvements. They felt that the development of single-family detached cluster homes was
compatible with existing residential development and that the proposal complied with zoning
requirements. Member of the Commission also felt the revised entrance location was compatible with
the planned realignment and improvements to the Greenwood Road and Valley Mill Road
intersection, however, the applicant would need comply with all review agency concerns.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Master Development Plan 4001-96 of Hill Valley to develop 26.123 acres
of residential land for 54 single-family detached cluster homes and does also hereby grant the staff
administrative approval authority to approve the revised master development plan, with particular
attention that the County Engineer's requirements are satisfied.
12
In closing, Chairman DeHaven felt it was not particularly fair to adjoining property
owners, who may have been shown a plan or been told about a plan, and then have a different, revised
plan presented and discussed at the public hearing by the applicant.
1996 PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT RESULTS
No Action
Mr. Watkins presented a list of issues and strategies discussed at the 1996 Planning
Commission Retreat.
Members of the Commission brought up the subject of staff recommendations for
application review. They suggested that the words "meets all specifications" or "does not meet the
following specifications..." be used instead of the phrases "approval" or "disapproval." Members
of the Commission felt this subject was worthy of further discussion.
Members of the Commission asked about the status of the Stephens City Well -head
ordinance. Mr. Watkins said that a reply was sent to Stephens City stating that the County can not
legally enforce or support the ordinance as it would apply outside of the Town boundaries. It was
noted that dialogue is continuing on this subject.
1995 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Action - Approved
Mr. Ruddy presented the 1995 Annual Report of the Department of Planning and
Development and stated that the report was intended to provide the Commission and others with
information to evaluate the previous year's planning activities and to aide in comprehensive planning
for the upcoming year.
Members of the Commission felt this was an informative and excellent report and
made a good quick -reference guide. Members of the Commission felt the report was so useful, they
wanted to see it expanded to include VDOT activities in Frederick County, such as the current year's
expenditures or mileage of road constructed, and also some statistics about county residents, such
as occupation, education, etc.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the Planning
13
Commission unanimously approved the 1995 Annual Report of the Department of Planning and
Development.
OTHER
The Commission and staff next talked about the County's Capital Improvements Plan
(C.I.P.), which the Commission recommended for approval at their meeting of February 7, 1996.
In particular, questions arose as to how the values were arrived at and whether or not the process was
sound financial planning. Some of the points raised were: The Planning Commission does not have
the tools for financial planning and it is not their role; the reason the Virginia Code designates the
Planning Commission to review the C.I.P. is because of its tie to the Comprehensive Plan. By placing
projects on the C.I.P., they become eligible for proffers. There may be an item on the C.I.P. that the
County has no intention of ever funding, but if it is on the list, there is the potential that other money
sources may be used to fund the project. The values designated on the C.I.P. will fluctuate and are
only to be used as a guide.
The Commission also discussed the subject of public hearing signs and whether or not
they were large enough or distinguishable enough for the public to recognize them. They also raised
the point of whether the staff should oversee where the signs are placed. Commissioners and staff
were open for suggestions and felt the subject deserved further discussion at a future time.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, Chairman DeHaven adjourned the meeting
at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
(printed March 21, 1996)
REZONINGS:
Frederick Mall Land Trust
(Pine Ridge Est. REZ
Gainesboro
26.14 acres from RA to RP for 29 s.f.
residential lots
Location:
East side of Apple Pie Ridge (739) & north side of
Glentawber Drive
Submitted:
02/16/96
PC Review:
03/06/96 - Recommended Denial
BOS Review:
-Applicant withdrew application on 03/11/96
Woodside Est. (REZ)
Opequon 36.4589 Acres from RA to RP for
s.f. residential lots
Location:
West side of Double Churches Rd (Rt. 641), south of the
intersection w/ Fairfax Pk t. 277
Submitted:
11/15/95
PC Review:
12/06/95 - Recommended Denial
BOS Review:
02/13/96 Tabled for uns ecified eriod atapplicant's req.
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Dr. Raymond Fish (MDP)
StonewallAnimal Hospital & Mobile Office
Sales on 20.93 acres B2 & B3
Location:
East side of I-81 and south side of Rt. 672
Submitted:
11/02/95
PC Review:
01/03/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
01/24/96 - Approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
LA—Waiting completion of review agency requirements
Preston Place Apts. Phase II
MDP
Shawnee Garden Apartment Units (rental)
on 14.59 acres RP
Location:
No. Side of Al ort Rd. Rt. 645
Submitted:
01/29/96
PC Review:
02/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review: --703/13/96
- Tabled by BOS until 04/10/96
Whitehall Business Pk
(Flying J MDP
Stonewall Business Pk on 52.04 Ac. (Ml &
B3
Location:
So. West quadrant of I-81 & Rt. 669 intersection
Submitted:
01/31/96
PC Review:
02/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
02/28/96 -Approved
Pending Admin. A royal:
_Awaiting completion of review agency requirements.
Hill Valley (MDP)
Shawnee 54 SF Det. Cluster; 26.123 Ac.
RP
Location:
N.W. Corner of Valley Mill & Greenwood Rds.
Submitted:
11/15/95
PC Review:
03/06/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
04/10/96
James R. Wilkins, III
MDP
Shawnee 76 Apartments & 86 T.H. (RP)
i Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
11/02/92
PC Review:jjroval.:-
12/16/92 Tabled
02/17/93 Approved
BOS Review:03/10/93
Tabled
04/14/93 Approved
PendingAdmin. AAwaiting
completion of review agency requirements
SUBDIVISIONS:
Premier Place SUB
Shawnee
4 B2 Lots; 5 Acres Total
Location:
No. & West of the 522/645 intersection
Submitted:
02/26/96
PC Review:
03/20/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
04/10/96
Fredericktowne Est. Sects.
12 & 13 SUB
Opequon 30 sf detached RP lots; 11.3496
total acres
Location:
NE of Sects. 5-8; SE of Sect. 11
Submitted:
02/26/96
PC Review:
03/20/96 - Approved
BOS Review:
Rev. b BOS not required; has a roved MDP
3
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
PC Review:
11 / 15/95 - Approved
BOS Review:
Review not required --Has an approved MDP
Pending Admin. ARpj2vak
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
PC Review:
10/04/95 Approved
BOS Review:
Review not required --Has an approved MDP
Pending Admin. ApgEoval
Awaiting signed plats.
FRT&T Partnershi SUB
Back Creek
1 Lot - 29.6 Acres B2
Location:
Valley Pike t. 11 So.
Submitted:
05/17/95
PC Review:
06/07/95 Approved
BOS Review:
Review not required—has an approved MDP
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication
4
Briarwood Estates SUB
Stonewall 20 SF Det. Trad. Lots RP
Location:
Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
01/03/94
PC Review:
Review date pending atapplicant's request.
BOS Review:
Review not required --has an approved MDP
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
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed
plat
Harry Stimpson SUB
O e uon
Two B2 Lots
Location:
Town Run Lane
Submitted:
09/23/94
PC Review:
10/19/94 Approved
BOS Review:
10/26/94 Approved
Pending Admin. Approval: I
LAwaitingsigned plat.
SITE PLANS:
AeroCenter Business Pk
B.I. Chemical SP
Shawnee Warehouse/Office on 3.12 acres
M1
Location:
Lot 2; So.West corner of Victory Ln. & Arbor Ct.
Submitted:
03/20/96
Approved:
Pending
Toan & Assoc./Noland Proj.
Const. Mgt.) SP
Stonewall Distribution Warehouse on 0.2
ac. of a 4.17 ac. site 1
Location:
Stonewall Industrial A, Lot 14, Tyson Drive
Submitted:
03/14/96
11 Approved:
Pending
Senseny Rd. Elem. School
Addition SP
Shawnee School Addition on 3.0 ac. of a
9.7 ac. site RP
Location:
1481 Senseny Road
Submitted:
03/11/96
Approved:
Pending
McElroy Metal, Inc. (SP)
Stonewall Bldg. Addit. for Metal Fabricat.
on 0.28 ac. of a 4.99 ac. site 1
Location:
325 McGhee Road
Submitted:
02/13/96
11 Approved
Pending
Dominion KnollsSP
Stonewall
Townhouses on 20.278 ac. RP
Location:
Intersection of Baker Lane and Gordon Street
Submitted:
02/21/96
Approved:
Pending
H. N. Funkhouser (SP)
Shawnee Fast Food/Gas on .10 ac. Of a
0.709 ac. Site B2
Location:
Southern side of Rt. 50, a rox. 1,000' east of I-81
Submitted:
02/12/96
Approved:
03/12/96
Pegasus Business Center,
Phase I SP
ffice, Misc. Retail, Business on
Shawnee T2.5ac of a 6.0623 ac site B2
Location:
434 Buillick Road
Submitted:
02/14/96
Approved:
Pendin
AT&T P.O.P. Bldg. (SP)
Stonewall Bldg. Addition on 0.10 ac. Of a
0.19 acre site RP
Location:
iPendinS
2032 Martinsbur Pike S 11
Submitted:
02/13/96
Approved:
A roved:
Stowe -Woodward VBP
Project SP
Opequon
2,800 s.f. addition on 0.064 ac. Of
a 12 ac. Site M1
Location:
Rt. 11; Middletown
Submitted:
02/13/96
A roved:
03/21/96
Hardee's Mobile Oil Con-
venience Center SP
Back Creek
Conven. Cntr/Rest. on a 1.0727
ac. site RA CUP #011-95
Location:
Southeast corner of Rt. 50 West and Ward Avenue
Submitted:
12/20/95
Approved:
Pending
D.K. Erectors &
Maintenance, Inc. SP
Gainesboro
Indust Serv/Steel Fabrication on
a 10 acre site M2
Location:
4530 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
12/28/95
Approved:
Pending
Doerwaldt Dental Office
SP
Opequon
Medical Office Addition on 0.44
acres of a 0.44 acre parcel 112
Location:
103 Hi hlander Rd., Stephens Cit
Submitted:
12/18/95
Approved:
Pending
Regency Lakes, Sect. E SP
Stonewall
95 units on 28.0 acres MHl
Location:
North of Regency Lakes Drive
Submitted:
10/27/95
Approved:
Pending
Wheatlands Wastewater
Facility SP
Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres
RS
Location:
So. West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522
Submitted:
09/12/89
Note:
Being held atapplicant's request.
Flex Tech SP
Stonewall
M1 Use on 11 Ac. M1
Location:
East side of Ft. Collier Rd.
Q n h m ittPrl •
I n m"/On
Note:
Being held atapplicant's request.
Macedonia United (SP)
Methodist Church Addition
Shawnee
Church on 5+ Acres (RA)
Location:
1941 Macedonia Church Rd., White Post
Submitted:
07/31/95
Approved:
Pending
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Robt. E. Rose Memorial
Foundation, Inc. CUP
Stonewall
Home for Adult Care (RP)
Location:
549 Valley Mill Road
Submitted:
03/06/96
PC Review:
04/03/96
BOS Review:
04/24/96
Howard A. Pohn (CUP)
GainesboroCTOccupation - Blacksmith
Sho RA
Location:
709 Cattail Road
Submitted:
02/16/96
PC Review:
03/06/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
04/10/96
VARIANCES:
Philip & Janice Yount (Var)
Gainesboro 4.75' var. for existing pole barn
RA
Location:
1506 Hunting Ridge Road
Submitted:
02/21/96
BZA Review:
03/19/96 - Approved
KII
P/C Review Date: 4/03/96
BOS Review Date: 4/24/96
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ##002-96
Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, Inc.
Center for Community Living
Adult Care Facility
LOCATION: This property is located at 549 Valley Mill Road, Winchester, VA,
approximately one mile from Dowell J. Howard Vocational School on Route 659; traveling east,
property is on the left.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-56
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance)
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance), use
is residential.
PROPOSED USE: 26 -Bed Licensed Home for Adults and Adult Care Facility.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: We currently have a project for this section
of Route 659 in the preliminary design phase. At this time, we do not know what the
specific impacts on this property will be. Our minimum sight distance requirements are
not met at the existing entrance on Route 659 to allow for commercial use.
Inspections Department: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code and Section 308, Use Group I (Institutional) of the BOCA National
Building Code/1993. Other codes that apply are title 24 Code of Federal Regulation, Part
36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in
Commercial Facilities. Will need to show location of ADA Parking and Striping and
submit ramp detail at the time of permit application. Note: 1) Section 105.10 Asbestos
inspection in buildings to be renovated; 2) BOCA table for approved type of construction
Page 2
Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, Inc.
CUP 4002-96
for I-1 or I-2 uses. A/E Virginia Seal required on building plans.
Fire Marshal: See attached letter from Douglas Kiracofe, Fire Marshal, dated 3-8-
96.
Lord Fairfax Environmental Health District: At the present time, the subject property
is listed in our records as a private residence that is served by a septic system and drain
field. The proposed use would overwhelm this existing system. In talking with the
representative for the Memorial Foundation, they stated that the new proposed use will
hook up to central sewer and water. This was not stated on the copy of plans submitted
with the request. Therefore, if the new proposed use will hook up to central sewer and
water and properly abandon the existing septic system, then the Health Department has no
objection to the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the property.
Winchester Regional Airport: The developer should be familiar with and be required
to comply with the provisions of the Frederick County Code, Article XIII, AP1
Airport District, to ensure the complete safety of the Winchester Regional Airport.
Airspace and navigational aids within the Airport District may limit the height and use
type of the development. The developer should also be familiar with the following codes:
Title 15.2 Code of Virginia, Section 491.02 (Airport Safety Zoning); and Title 5.1 Code
of Virginia, (Permits Required for Erection of Certain Structures).
City of Winchester Planning Dept.: No comments.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer are available.
Planning Department: The proposed use would fall under the category of convalescent
and/or nursing home and is permitted in the RP zoning district with an approved
conditional use permit. Staff suggests that the Foundation address the VDOT comment
that insufficient sight distance exists at this location for commercial use early on because
this may be a very limiting factor needing an early decision. The Health Department
comment concerning the question of whether this facility will be serviced by public sewer
and water can be answered by stating that Frederick County will require this facility to be
so connected. An engineered site plan will be required for the construction and
conversion of this facility, and all issues that are surfaced now or during the site plan
process will need to be adequately addressed prior to a certificate of occupancy being
issued.
Page 3
Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, Inc.
CUP #002-96
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APRIL 3 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING: This application meets all the requirements necessary for approval and the
following conditions are recommended as appropriate:
1. A site plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.
2. Applicant must comply with all requirements of the state and county codes pertaining
to convalescent/nursing homes at all times.
3. Any expansion of this facility will require a revised site plan and a revised CUP.
4. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed and continually complied
with at all times.
File: K:\WP\CMN\COMMENTS\ROSE_MEM.CUP
March S, 1996
Center for Community Living
c/o Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation, Inc.
365 National Ave.
Winchester, Virginia
Addendum to Land Development Comments
I've reviewed the application for a Conditional Use Permit, to operate a 26 bed care
facility. I am recommending approval of the permit subject to approval of a site plan,
which will come later in this process. The site plan will need to reflect the following.
1. Any required Fire Lane must be 20' in width, capable of supporting a 36,000 lb.
vehicle, and posted with signage reading "No Parking Fire Lane".
2. Access via fire lane will be necessary to the south and west sides of the proposed
building. These are the sides of the building containing sleeping rooms and the Fire
Dept. wants the ability to immediately access these rooms.
3. This building will be a I-1 or I-2 Use Group. The entire facility must be protected by
an automatic sprinkler system. The siamese connection must be located on the north or
east side of the building within 100' of the existing fire hydrant, which is located on the
north side of the property.
4. The building must comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Statewide
Building Code, concerning means of egress, fire protection, fire alarms, and fire grading.
All of these issues can be addressed at the time of site plan submission. If there are any
questions as to the need for any of these items, or if there are any questions about these
requests, please contact the Fire Marshal's Office at 540-665-6350.
Douglas A. Kiracofe
Fire Marshal
cc: Engine Co. 18
File
Parting Thoughts
On Frederick County Planning
Robert Watkins, ins, April 3, 1996
Comprehensive Planning ti n ki
By the end of the decade, it would be worthwhile to take a step back and undertake a new /
community planning process(The annual review process is good and should continue)
However, every so often a community needs an opportunity to reassess where it is and where it
wants to go. Perhaps after the Route11 north work is com leted, a public planning process
could be undertaken that would allow the community to look at its vision of the future in a
participatory way.
Cost of Growth
The state needs to provide for impact fees to replace cash proffers. This would provide for a
much more r, uitable and efficient system for addressing cost impacts. However, strong interest
groups continue to work against impact fees in Richmond. Impact fees will not solve all of the
problems concerning the cost of growth. The deeper issues involve what type of growth the
community wants to have.
Transportation Planning
The numbers show that in Frederick County, the traffic has been growing at a much faster rate
than the population. As is true in the Nation as a whole, people are driving more and more. The
average hous lhoe d has more cars, more drivers, and makes more trips. At the same time, state
and federal governments are probably spending less per driver on roads. Add population growth
to this equation and you have the likelihood of serious future traffic problems.
VDOT seems to be trying pass some of the responsibility for road building to local
governments. The state and federal governments need to re-engineer what they are doing to
better work with and assist local governments and to facilitate partnerships. They need to work
with rapidly growing commun ries to find better ways to deal with traffic. Perhaps special
emphasis need to be placed on working with Richmond to find a better way to do business.
The way we have planned neighborhoods has often contributed to traffic problems. For
example, the so-called Fredericktowne neighborhood, which is approximately three miles long
from Sherando High School to Lakewood Manor, only has commercial and services uses at its
far southern end. It does not contain any major employment center. This means that many
people drive relatively long distances to services and must commute out of the neighborhood for
Parting Thoughts
Robert Watkins
Page 2
employment. Planning for neighborhood businesses and employment centers could help the
traffic situation.
In addition, we have not addressed means to mitigate the area and cumulative impacts of new
development on traffic. We could develop a system, similar to the capita aci it�es impact
model, to address traffic. When the WATS effort is complete, we will be able to estimate the
costs associated with major road improvements that are needed. A system could be developed
that estimates the portion of those system costs that might be associated with a new
development. This estimate might result in proffered contributions to a road improvement fund.
Development Standards
Work needs to continue on development standards in relation to residential and non-residential
development. Such standards will have the result of maximizing the economic value of
development over the long term. Allowing substandard development will provide short term
gains but will result in killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The appearance of many
corridors and neighborhoods in the County leaves much to be desired and wll result in relatively
rapid economic decline. el- 4 r
Historic Preservation
The history of Frederick County plays a unusually large role in determining what the community
is. The historic resources in Frederick County are an enormous economic resource waiting to be
exploited. With a great deal of work, the community can become an international tourist
destination. However, everyone will need to pitch in and not just local government.
1.
Submittal Deadlir�i
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting t�rl
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT11
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA �
(The applicant if
e owner X
NAME: Robert E. Rose Memorial Foundation. Tnr•
ADDRESS: 365 National Ave., Winchester, VA 22601
TELEPHONE (540) 667-1919
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
Owner: Vera V. Dove Party in interest: Robert E. Rose
104 Timberlake Terrace Memorial Foundation, Inc.
Stephens City, VA 22655
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
_ 549 Valley Mill Road, Winchester, VA
Approximately 1 mile from Dowell J. Howard Vocational School
on Route 659. Traveling east, property is on the left.
4. The property has a road frontage of approx..860 feet and a
depth of feet and consists of 3.29 acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by Vera V. Dove as
evidenced by deed from NorMan &rene Dove recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. __685 on page 469 , as recorded in the
records of the Clark of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 55000-A-0000-0056
Magisterial District Stonewall
Current Zoning Residential Fer ormance
7. Adjoining
North
East
South
West
Property:
USE
Residential
Residential
Residential
Res i ean t;i a 1
ZONING
Residential Performance
Residential Performance
Residential Performance
Residential Performance
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing) 26 b d s with
12 slot Licensed Adult Care program
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: 7525 sq. ft. wood and brick building to
provide space for 16 residential beds and 12 Adult Care slots,
kitchen and dining facility, etc.
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
Vera Dove
Address 549 Valley Mill Rd. Winchester, VA
22
Property ID# 55000 -A -0000-056F
Myrtle A. Roon
Address 543 Valley Mill Rd. Winchester, VA
22
Property ID# 55000-A-0000-0055
David E. & Debra M.
Address 105 Van Buren Court, Winchester, VA
22
Smith
Property ID# 55C00-7-0005-0017
Gregory V. Groves
Address 104 Van Buren Court, Winchester, VA
2
Property ID# 55C00-7-0005-0018
J. Randolph &
Address P.O. Box 444, Winchester, VA 22604
William W. Larrick
T/A R&R Properties
property ID# 55000-7-0005-0025
J. Randolph &
Address P.O. BOX 444, Winchester, VA 22604
William W. Larrick
Property ID# 55000-7-0005-0026
T/A R&R Properties
2
02
02
'602
NAME
Jeffrey A. & Pamela D.
Address 100 Woody's Place, Winchester,
VA 226D2
Gillum
Property ID# 55C00-7-0005-0001
Carlisle Estates
Address 741 Woodland Ave., Winchester,
VA 226 1 01
(Common Area)
Property ID# 55C00 -3-0001-001A
Dennis D. & Lorrie L.
Address 102 Woody's Place, Winchester,
VA 22602
Collins
Property ID# 55C00-3-0001-0002
Henry M. Mercier, Jr.
Address 104 Woody's Place, Winchester,
VA 22E 02
Property ID# 55C00-3-0001-0003
Kenneth Rhoads
Address 106 Woody's Place, Winchester,
VA 22602
Property ID# 55000-3-0001-0004
Joseph A.
Address 108 Woody's Place, Winchester,
VA 226 02
D'Arcangelis
Property ID# 55C00-3-0001-0005
Address
Property ID#
Address
'Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show
proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including
measurements to all property lines.
"? � cL-y-,, s o�i4c, (21-) - (f�.
tNNI
�-----------------
COPYRI
uiw& NOTE: COOWZPT4SITE
ROkD PP EASUb OR
-
------------------ --- --�- VWT MAP.
ENTKWM C)kt*•u:t,
�dt �
,
,
' I O O / PMT.
pftrw
d� SI�EuvAt I-PNDSGAPit4o
J Q trip )
` G
p ROAD °
RAMP . M\eo
Oc PORIciNU
c'� ; � bR►v6�AY � �,O
t;3 � pWzkih4CG PRE.A.
VEtlTTATlvt4
EXIST'ItJ(s
� � vEN�eTAT1oN
/ BUtt,RIN6
G01466pTUA1, SITS f:,LooA l
2..5
U
z
z
O
�a
aZ
z
mg
o>
J
az
z�
2U
WY
i
N C
Ow
zUJ
W
cr
W LL
t -
C
w
m
O
m
F—
Q �
V)
0 9
LU
0
LLI
SCALE:
( 5o
ft. •5•01r,
GJ
TW;4"Ve
PTI WU
WMN
AWITO ff- PoiqcH
ACTI.VIT-Y
room
Rmp
MY
wow]
VFISTISU
GOH�MATIC, MAIN LeV�L, p[.AH
<
STAFF
r.low
If 1
TE -PR C4 LANM.&AFIO
DAlf- ROOM
Ift to
AIM
In
i y
�j
_ _ __
t
— _
TW;4"Ve
PTI WU
WMN
AWITO ff- PoiqcH
ACTI.VIT-Y
room
Rmp
MY
wow]
VFISTISU
GOH�MATIC, MAIN LeV�L, p[.AH
<
STAFF
If 1
TE -PR C4 LANM.&AFIO
DAlf- ROOM
Ift to
TW;4"Ve
PTI WU
WMN
AWITO ff- PoiqcH
ACTI.VIT-Y
room
Rmp
MY
wow]
VFISTISU
GOH�MATIC, MAIN LeV�L, p[.AH
-------- -- - -
a
rJE-C-HAMCAL,
fzoom
lAft,H -
ROOM
BETTRW14
STomhbrr,
HFC44
Roots
• ;C+4TIG 5AZC-,M5-,tJT LE'VOL, MAW
XIGT IR pt AN
HORrH
3
z?
>z
O
J�Q
Z t7
=05
J
Q
�O�
Uwe
� Y
LU
0Nw
LL d' W
�ujw
Z W LL
U�
N "
H
Q '
Li N
W
a �
Q
w
SCALE:
I�aNz�! �tl
DATE:
lo - z -T7
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.
/J Kerm Schroeder
Signature of Applicant Cfj Chairman RMF Board
ors
Signature of Owner
' Vera Dove - Owner
Owners' Mailing Address 104 Timberlake Terrace
Stephens City, VA 22655
Owners' Telephone No. (540) 869-7741
'TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II � U
RE: Survey Standards Amendment
DATE: March 20, 1996
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
Staff conducted an informal discussion with the Planning Commission in January to discuss the need for
building location survey standards. This need was identified by the Building Official and the County
Engineer to mitigate the number of structures that encroach upon the minimum required building setback
line. The Planning Commission felt that the proposed language was appropriate to address this
problem. However, the Planning Commission suggested that the new standards should require a footing
stakeout survey and a mid -construction survey in lieu of a footing stakeout and an as -built survey.
This was suggested to address construction problems prior to the completion of the structure. The
Planning Commission felt that this approach would provide more protection to the homeowner.
The proposed amendment incorporates language for a mid -construction survey requirement and removes
the requirement for an as -built survey. The proposed amendment hasalso been modified to remove the
requirement for a certification letter by the surveyor of record. This was removed at the request of
the Top of Virginia Builders Association and has been modified to require the surveyor of record to
complete and seal information on the building permit. A copy of this permit form was provided to the
Top of Virginia Builders Association for review in December.
Included with this memorandum is the proposed amendment to Section 165-23, Setback Requirements, of
the Zoning Ordinance and a copy of the Building Permit Setback Report which contains the required
surveyor information. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider this information and forward
a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ARTICLE IV - Supplementary Use Regulations
165-23 Setback Requirements
H. Structural location survey requirements. The following survey requirements shall be complete
for applicable primary and accessory structures within all zoning districts as described:
(1) A surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia shall establish the location of
any primary structure that is located five (5) feet or less from any minimum setback
requirement.
(2) A surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia shall establish the location of
any accessory structure occupying an area of 500 square feet or greater that is located
five (5) feet or less from any minimum setback requirement.
(3) Information verifying the footing location stakeout shall be provided on the
appropriate Building Permit Setback Report prior to the approval of the footing for
the primary or accessory structure. The surveyor of record shall complete the required
information on the Building Permit Setback Report and affix his or her professional
seal containing the appropriate signature and date. The Building Permit Setback
Report containing the required footing location stakeout surveyor information shall
be posted on the construction site with the building permit hard card at the time of
the footing inspection.
(4) A mid -construction survey shall be prepared by the surveyor of record once the rough
framing of the primary or accessory structure is in place. Rough framing shall include
the foundation, all exterior walls and the roof system. The surveyor of record shall
complete the required information on the Building Permit Setback Report and affix his
or her professional seal containing the appropriate signature and date. The Building
Permit Setback Report containing the required mid -construction surveyor information
shall be provided to the Department of Engineering and Inspections prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit by the Building Official.
County of Frederica; Setback Report PERMIT NUMBER: 0002234 - 95
Winchester VA 22604 USBC: 1993
APPLICATION DATE: 12/05/95
LTcIV AGENT: APPLICATION
DATE:
DATE: 12/12/95
OWNER NAME/ADDRESS SITE ADDRESS CONTRACTOR NAME/ADRESS
H & H Builders nWvNER
2372 Double Church Road 106 Big Limb Lane
Stephens City, VA 22655 Woodside Estates, Lot 53
Stephens City, VA 22655
PHONE: 540-869-0489 PHONE:
DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTIGN LOCATION
TAX MAP NO.: 86E 1 53 LOT: 53 BLOCK: SECTION. BLDG NO.:
SETBACKS: HEALTH PERMIT NO.: DISTRICT: OPE000N
FRONT: 35' BACK: 44' FLOODPLAIN: SUB -DIVISION: WOODSIDE ESTATES
RIGHT: 39' LEFT: 39' AREA: Fredericktowne ZONE: Residential Performance
G11TR : FRTGE: RIGHT-OF-WAY: SIE CUP NO.: SITE PLAN:
DIRECTIONS TO SITE:, Take Route 277, turn R. onto Double Chruch Road, go
approx. 1/4 mile turn R. into Woodside Estates, take first L. onto
Big Limb Lane, house on R.
Not in map book yet
'SE GROUP: Use Group "R" Residential USE CODE: Single Family Dwelling SQ FEET:
:NST -TYPE: New NATURE/WRK:
Setback Report
------
JOB VALUE:
PERMIT FEE: I SURVEYOR INFORMATION I
I I
I NAIME: FRONT: LEFT: I
I DATE OF SURVEY: REAR: RIGHT: SEAL I
I
i
I I
I I
I I
I I
TOTAL FEES: I
REQUIRED SIGNATURES —�