PC 03-06-96 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
MARCH 6, 1996
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Bi -monthly Report/Activity Report ....................................... A
2) Committee Reports ................................................... B
3) Citizen Comments .................................................... C
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4) Rezoning Application #001-96 by Frederick Mall Land Trust (Pine Ridge Estates) to
rezone 26.14 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance)
District. This property is located on the east side of Apple Pie Ridge (Route 739) and
the north side of Glentawber Drive, and is identified with PIN 442-A-198 in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................................ D
5) Conditional Use Permit Application #001-96 by Howard A. and Sheila A. Pohn to
establish a blacksmithing business. This property is located at 709 Cattail Road (Route
73 1) and is identified by PIN 21-A-18 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Mr. Miller)......................................................... E
6) An Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV,
Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-37D, Zoning District Buffers. The
proposed amendment will reduce the required buffer distance between properties zoned
industrial and properties with other zoning classifications based on specific performance
design standards.
(Mr. Wyatt)......................................................... F
f
2
PUBLIC MEETING
7) HILL VALLEY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #001-96 - The applicant is
proposing 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.
(Mr. Lawrence) ...................................................... G
OTHER ITEMS
8) 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT RESULTS
(Mr. Watkins)........................................................ H
9) 1995 ANNUAL REPORT
(Mr. Ruddy) ......................................................... I
10) Other.............................................................. J
K:\WP\CMN\96C0VERS\PC3_06.AGN
BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
(printed February 23, 1996)
REZONINGS:
Frederick Mall Land Trust Stonewall 26.14 acres from RA to RP for 29 s.f.
(Pine Ridge Est. REZ residential lots
Location: East side of Apple Pie Ridge (739) & north side of
Glentawber Drive
Submitted: 02/16/96
PC Review: 03/06/96
BOS Review: 03/27/96
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 unspecified period at applicant's rea.
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Dr. Raymond Fish (MDP) I Stonewall Animal Hospital & Mobile Office
Sales on 20.93 acres 2 & B3
Location: East side of 1-81 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: jAwaiting completion of review
Preston Place Apts. Phase II
MDP
Shawnee Garden Apartment Units (rental)
on 14.59 acres
Location:
No. Side of Ai_ ort Rd. M. 648
Submitted:
01/29/96
PC Review:
02/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review: 1103/13/96
02/28/96
Whitehall Business Pk
(Flying P
Stonewall Business Pk on 52.04 Ac. (M1 &
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
Hill Valley (MDP)
Shawnee 54 SF Det Cluster; 26.123 Ac.
Location:
N.W. Corner of Valley Mill & Greenwood Rds.
Submitted:
11/15/95
PC Review:
03/06/96
BOS Review:
03/27/96
Fieldstone H hts P
Stonewall
169 SF Det. Trad. Lots
Location:
South of Valley Mill Rd. t. 659
Submitted:
04/25/94
PC Review:
05/18/94 Tabled
07/06/94:A.22roved
DOS Review:
08/10/94 Approved
Admin. Approval:
02/23/96
2
James R. Wilkins, III
MDF
Location:
Shawnee 76 Apartments & 86 T.H. (RP)
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
11/02/92
PC Review:
12/16/92 Tabled
02/17/93 Approved
BOS Review:
03/10/93 Tabled
04/14/93 A roved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting completion of review a ency requirements
SUBDIVISIONS:
O Partnershi SUB
Back Creek
2 B2 Lots; 10.031 Acres Total
cation:
Sul Drive
bmitted:
[Admin.
11 /06/92
Review:
01/03/96 -Approved
S Review:
Not Required --Has Approved MDP
Approved:_
02/20/96
Valley Mill Estates SUB
Stonewall
21 SF Trad. Lots
Location:
No. Side of ValleyMill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
10/23/95
PC Review:
11/15/95 - Approved
B Review:
PendingAdmin. A roval:
Review not required --Has an approved MDP
Awaitin bonding, si ed plats, &deed of dedication
3
Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB)
Back Creek 2 M1 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. Approval
Awaiting signed 21ats.
Star Fort, Sect. I (SUB)
Stonewall 21 SF lots on 7.5713 total acres
RP
Location:
Lauck Drive; east side of Rt. 832
Submitted:
08/28/95
PC Review:
10/18/95 - Approved
BOS Review:
Review not required --Has an approved MDP
Admin. Approved:
02/22/96
RT&T Partnership SUB
Back Creek I 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres 2
Valley Pike t. 11 So.
Location:
Submitted:
05/17/95
PC Review:
06/07/95 Approved
BOS Review:
Review not required—has an approved NMP
Pending Admin. A roval-
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
PC Review:
Review date pending at applicant's request.
BOS Review:
Review not required—has an approved MDP
Abrams Point, Phase I
SUB
Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 Aperoved
BOS Review:
06/13/90 Approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed
lat
Harry Stimpson SUB
Oe 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. A roval:
Awaiting signed plat.
5
SITE PLANS:
McElroy Metal, Inc. (SP)
Stonewall Bldg. Addit. for Metal Fabricat.
on 0.28 ac. of a 4.99 ac. site OM1
Location:
325 McGhee Road
Submitted:
02/13/96
11 Approved:
Pending
Dominion Knolls SP
Stonewall
Townhouses on 20.278 ac.
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 2
Location:
Southern side of Rt. 50, approx. 1,000' east of I-81
Submitted:
02/12/96
Approved:
Pending
Pegasus Business Center,
Phase I SP
Shawnee Office, Misc. Retail, Business on
2.5 ac of a 6.0623 ac site 2
434 Bufllick Road
Location:
Submitted:
02/14/96
Approved:
Pending
6
City of Winchester Water
Storage Tank SP
Gainesboro Utilities Facility on <1 acre of a
121.78 acre site RA
Location:
Echo Lane; North of Rt. 50 West
Submitted:
01/29/96
Approved:
Pendin
Hardee's Mobile Oil Con-
venience Center SP
Back Creek Conven. Cntr/Rest. on a 1.0727
ac. site RA CUP #011-!L—
Location:
Southeast corner of Rt. 50 West and Ward Avenue
Submitted:
12/20/95
11 Approved:
Pending
D.K. Erectors &
Maintenance, Inc. SP
Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on
a 10 acre site 2
Location:
4530 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
12/28/95
11 Approved
Pending
Albin Ridge Storage, Phase
III Revised SP
Gainesboro Wholesale Merch/Self Storage on
0.50 ac of 5 ac site 3
Location:
Indian Hollow Rd. t. 679
Submitted:
12/29/95
Approved:
02/21/96
Estes Express Lines Dock
Addition SP
Stonewall Office/Transfer Station on 2.52
ac. of 6.8702 ac. tract 1
Location:
906 Baker Lane
Submitted:
01/02/96
Approved:
02/12/96
Doerwaldt Dental Office
(SP)
Opequon Medical Office Addition on 0.44
acres of a 0.44 acre arcel B2
Location:
103 Highlander Rd., Ste hens City
Submitted:
12/18/95
Approved:
Pending
Aerocenter Business Park,
Lot 4 (SP)
Location:
Submitted:
AnDroved:
Professional Mobile Home
Brokers, Inc. (SP)
Location:
Submitted:
Sect. E
Location:
Submitted:
Approved:
Shawnee I Warehouse on 4.8264 Acres (M1)
No. of intersection of Arbor.Ct. & Victory Rd
12/04/95
Pending
Stonewall Mobile/Modular Home Sales on
2.7780 Acres (B3)
So. Side Rt. 7
12/05/95
Stonewall
North of
10/27/95
r7
southwest corner of Eckard Circle
95 units on 28.0 acres
Lakes Drive
Rite Aid Pharmacy (SP)
Opequon Rite Aid Pharmacy on 1.50 acres
B2
Location:
SE corner of intersection of Fairfax Pk (Rt. 277) & Double
Church Rd. t. 641
Submitted:
09/08/95
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
11 Note:
Being held ata licant's request.
Flex Tech SP
Stonewall
M1 Use on 11 Ac. 1
Location:
East side of Ft. Collier Rd.
Submitted:
10/25/90
11 Note:
BeinE held at applicant'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
10
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Howard A. Pohn (CUP)
Cottage Occupation - Blacksmith
Shop (RA)
Location:
l Road
Submitted:
Einro
PC Review:
12/15/95
BOS Review:
Donald R. Merritt
Gainesboro
Re-establish Nonconforming Use
- Porta -potties for distribution
RA
Location:
558 M le Road
12/08/95
01/03/96- Recommended Approval w/conditions
Submitted:
12/15/95
PC Review:
02/07/95 - Recommended Denial
BOS Review:
02/28/95
The National Humane Edu-
cation SocietyCUP
Stonewall Change -of Use & Expansion of
ExistingKennel
Location:
North Side of Walters WillRd. t. 836
Submitted:
PC Review:
12/08/95
01/03/96- Recommended Approval w/conditions
DOS Review:
02/13/96 - Denied
11
VARIANCES•
Philip & Nancy Yount (Var)
11
Gainesboro
1
4.75' var. for existing pole barn
(nom % 11
Location:
1506 Hunting
Ridge Road
Submitted:
02/21/96
BZA Review:
03/19/96
12
PC REVIEW DATE: 03/06/96
REZONING APPLICATION #001-96
Frederick Mall Land Trust
(Pine Ridge Estates)
To Rezone 26.14 Acres
From RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance)
LOCATION: East side of Apple Pie Ridge (Rt. 739) and the north side of Glentawber Drive
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 42-A-198
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Land Use: Vacant with one
Residence
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Land Use:
Residential
PROPOSED USE: 29 Single family residential lots
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: We have no overall objections to the rezoning of this
property. However, the traffic generated by the development will have an added impact to
the Route 522/739 intersection. Additionally, since Route 739 is designated as a major
collector roadway in the County's current Comprehensive Plan, adequate right-of-way should
be donated along the property's western boundary to meet minimum right-of-way width
requirements. Prior to development, this office will require a complete set of construction
site plans including drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Manual, Fifth
Edition, for review. Any work performed on VDOT right-of-way must be covered under a
land use permit.
Page 2
Frederick Mall Land Trust Rezoning #001-96
Sanitation Authority: No comment.
Engineering/PublicWorks: (1) Storm water management will be required and should be
shown at the time of master development plan submittal. (2) Under Item VIII, Solid Waste
Lost, the impact on Frederick County will be approximately $3,000 per year based on the
current tipping fees.
Fire Marshal: See attached letter dated January 30, 1996 from Douglas A. Kiracofe, Fire
Marshal.
County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper form.
Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer appears to be in line with the impact this
development would have on recreational services provided by Frederick County.
Frederick County Schools: Please see attached letter dated February 16, 1996 from
Thomas Sullivan, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent.
Planning & Zoning:
Location: The property is located within the Urban Development Area, in close proximity
to a major corridor interchange. Although the parcel lies on the edge of the Sewer and Water
Service Area, sewer and water are both available, just across Route 739 (12" water line and
8" sewer), and the interpretation would have to be made that the parcel is within the service
area.
Site Suitability: The parcel is gently rolling with no steep slopes or other environmentally
sensitive features as defined by the County's Zoning Ordinance. The property is surrounded
on three sides by Rural Areas Zoning; however, the area to the north and east has been
extensively developed into large residential lots ranging in size roughly from two to five
acres. To the south is Route 3 7 and Business General (132) Zoning, and to the west is vacant
Page 3
Frederick Mall Land Trust Rezoning #001-96
land owned by the Frederick County School System, Apple Pie Elementary School and a
church.
Potential Impacts: A number of anticipated impacts from the proposed rezoning have been
addressed by proffers. The applicant has proffered that there will be no entrance on Apple
Pie Ridge Road; rather, lots will either front or have access to Glentawber Road along the
southern edge of the parcel. A limit of no more than 29 single family lots, including the
existing residence, has been proffered. Finally, a proffer of $3,571.00 has been offered for
schools and parks and recreation and $16.00 for fire and rescue, both sums to be paid per lot,
at the time a building permit is issued.
Staff would point out some important technical points concerning the wording of the proffer.
The $3,571.00 should be broken down into two specific amounts --one for parks and
recreation and one for schools; the fire and rescue proffer should specify the appropriate
company; and finally, the amounts should be paid at the time of application for a permit.
The most recent traffic count information for the section of Route 739 from Route 522 to
Route 673 was 2,143 average vehicles per day. The anticipated traffic from 28 new homes
would be an additional 280 trips per day, an increase of roughly 13% over the 1993 count.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 03\06\96 PC MEETING: Approval, contingent upon
rewording of the proffer statement as discussed in the staff comments.
January 30, 1996
Frederick Mall L _?nd Trust.
Pine Ridge Estates
# 0130960053
I've reviewed the rezoning application for the above property. The Proffer statement for
Fire and Rescue capitol expenses is consistant with the impact model of similiar
subdivisions.
At the time of Build -out, 29 homes, the Fire and Rescue Dept. can expect an increase of
2.9 responses annually to this subdivision. This statistic is based on response data
maintained by the Fire Marshal's Office since 1990, that tracks responses by household
and on a per capita basis.
When the construction drawings are produced for this project, please include the
following in your "General Construction Notes."
1. Burning of Land Clearing Debris requires a permit from the Fire Marshal's Office
prior to any open air burning.
2. Burning of construction debris on individual lots is prohibited.
3. Prior to beginning construction of homes, temporary street name signage, and
temporary street address numbers must be in place.
4. Access for emergency vehicles must be maintained to all structures at all times during
construction.
5. Construction materials, vehicles, dumpsters, or other construction related equipment,
is not to be placed within 20' of a fire hydrant at any time.
When building begins, I would like the oppertunity to speak with the developer or builder
about the advantages and merits of Residential Sprinkler Systems.
Tha - You✓ -�
Douglas A. iracofe
Fire Marshal
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
Mr. H. K. Benham, III February 16, 1996
Harrison and Johnston, Attorneys At Law
P. O. Box 809
21 S. Loudoun Street
Winchester, VA 22604
Dear Bunny.
I am in receipt of your request for comments concerning the
Application for Rezoning from RA to RP for the property of Mary
Ellen Pope on the East side of Apple Pie Ridge and the North side
of Frontage Road (Glentawber Drive).
It is our understanding the proposed use of this property is
for the construction of twenty-eight single family homes.
We feel this proposal will have an impact on current and
future school facilities. We recommend these concerns be addressed
during the approval process.
Please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience if
you should require any additional information.
Sincerely,
C:A
Thomas Sullivan
Administrative Assistant
to the Superintendent
cc: R. Thomas Malcolm
,CEz #x"00/-96
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
To be completed by Planning Staff.-
Zoning
taff
Zoning Amendment Number -00 1-9 Date Received 1091
BOS Hearing Date PC Hearing Date 4l0
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the
Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 23-euUMSTPrM. Winchester
h �
lc,ri NOVAV',
1. Applicant:
Name: Frederick Mall Land Trust
Address: P. 0. Box 368
Winchester, Virginia 22604
Telephone: 7c .7 � G 7 -A&= 7 .2 y -7
2. Representative:
Name: H. K. Benham, III
Telephone: 540 - 667 - 1266
3. Owner:
Name: Mary Ellen Pope
Address: 11Zt 2
c Z Z G C, �-
Telephone: ,�
12�VO4-.�*
YW-
The _Code of _-Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning
applications,
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
See above
4. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be -changed
from RA to RP
5. Current Use of the Property:
fit's ,' Ole /2'
6. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER LS.,,E ZONING
t V,
7. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from
nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
East side of Apple Pie Ridge (Route 739) and North side of Frontage Road
(R ) Olentawber Drive).
13
8. Parcel Identification:
14 Digit Tax Parcel Number:r�
9. Magisterial District:4-7
10. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned.
Total Area: Z 6, / c�
Acres
The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted:
Acres Rezoned from to
Acres Rezoned from to
Acres Rezoned from to
Acres Rezoned from to
11. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed:
Conveyed from: AA 1/.
WILL BOOK
� Number 1 105 541
Pages
12. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses.
Division into residential lots
13. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map
Plat
Deed toro / '
P PeTh' �'` ''
Statement verifying taxes paid
Agency Comments
Fees
Impact Analysis Statement
Proffer Statement
i
i,
As
�Q
14
14. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of
Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for
site inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and
the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road
right-of-way until the hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to
the best of my (purl knowledgle
re erick Ma i Land Trust
Applicant: By: /� �6�i oZ"
Owner. ��` F /� —
Mary Ellen Pope
Date:
15
INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT MODEL
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to
provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use
the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page
8 of the application package.
The following information should be provided regardless of the type of rezoning:
Fire Service District:
Rescue Service District:
Total Proposed Non -Residential Lots/Buildings:
Company 15 (Round Hill Community)
Company 15 (Round Hill Community)
The following information should be provided with any residential rezoning:
Elementary School District:
Middle School District:
High School District:
Number of Single Family Dwellings Proposed:
Number of Townhouse Dwellings Proposed:
Number of Multi -Family Dwellings Proposed:
Number of Mobile Home Units Proposed:
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School
Frederick County Middle School
James wood Highschool
'z ? .n., , r U.ld
O
D
O
The following information should be provided with any commercial/industrial rezoning or with a
residential/commercial (P.U.D.) rezoning:
Gross Office Square Footage:
Retail Square Footage:
Restaurant Square Footage:
Service Station Square Footage:
Manufacturing Square Footage:
Warehouse Square Footage:
Hotel Rooms:
_ 4Zf
16
v
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
Owners of property adjoining the land proposed to be rezoned will be notified of the public hearing. For
the purposes of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property or any
property directly across a road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the
following information on each adjoining property including the 14 -digit property identification number
which may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Department.
ame
Address and Property Identification
1. Phyllis F. Sheard
Address: '/o Phyllis S. Brow
970 Shadv Elm Road
inchester, VA' 22603
Properly IJJ: 42000A00000199
2. Kimberly Ellen Carter
Address: 430 Apple Pie Ridge Road
Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID: 42000A0000198B
. Bernard D. McClung
Address: 428 Apple Pie Ridge Road
and Sally J.
Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID: 42000A0000198C
• Carl R. Quanstrom
Address: 305 Woodside Lane
Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID: 42000120000008
. Guy Black
Address: 315 Woodside Lane
Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID: 42000120001009
• Jack C. Williams
Address: 281 Glentawber Drive
and Mary M.
Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID: 42000A0000198A
. Nicholson Rental Properties
Address: 1115 Dicks Hollow Road
Inc.
Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID: 4200OA0000198H
8. Stines Chapel
Address: 729 Round Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Property ID: 42000500000197
9• Frederick County School
Address: P. 0. Box 3508
Board
Winchester, VA 22604
Property ID: 4200050000000D
VP
l
�S�• � to is PrV�t�+
j 4.. � � 7tF�, x� �•
`' e
18
ame
Address and Property Identification
10.
Frederick
County School
Address: P. 0. Box 3508
Board
Winchester, VA 22604
Property ID: 4200060000000A
11.
Frederick
County School
Address: P. 0. Box 3508
Board
Winchester, VA 22604
Property ID: 4200060000000B
12.
Winchester
Stake of Church
Address: William Summer Butterfield, president
5413 Main
of LDS
Street
Stephens City, VA 22655
Property ID: 420005000000D1
13.
Charles L.
Jenkins, Jr.
Address: 1333 Ambrose Drive
Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID: 53AO0300020102
14.
Gary Lee Jenkins
Address: 112 Oak Side Lane
Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID: 53AO0300020103
15.
Address:
Property ID:
I6.
Address:
Property ID:
17.
Address:
Property ID:
18.1
Address:
Property ID:
19.
Address:
Property ID:
0.
Address:
Property ID:
18
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
Re: Mary Ellen Pope Property
Mary Ellen Pope - Owner
Frederick Mall Land Trust - Applicant
Rezoning Case No.
The undersigned Owner and Applicant hereby voluntarily
proffer that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of
Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning of the Owner's 26.14
Acre tract of land lying on the East side of Apple Pie Ridge,
just North of Route 37 just West of Winchester in Stonewall
Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP,
the Applicant will pay to Frederick County, at the time a
building permit is issued for each lot, the sum of $3,571.00 (for
Parks and Recreation Department, Schools, Fire and Rescue
Department and as otherwise directed by the County) plus $16.00
for the Rescue Squad. In essence, the sum of $3,586.00 will be
paid at the time a building permit is issued for each lot.
In addition, the following perpetual conditions are
proffered against the area to be rezoned:
1. The rezoned property shall not be subdivided into more
than twenty-nine (29) lots (including one lot for the existing
house on the property) and one additional parcel, to be conveyed
to an adjacent lot owner.
2. No apartments, duplexes or other multi -family buildings
shah be constructed on the property.
3. No street.shall connect directly to Apple Pie Ridge
Road and all twenty-nine (29) lots shall front on a street
connecting to Frontage Road or directly on Frontage Road.
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,
FREDERICK MALL LAND TRUST
Applicant
ames T. Anderson
U
Mary Klen Pope - Owner
Mar -01-96 03:48P Harrison & Johnston
Revision
REZONING REQUEST PROFFER
Re: Mary Ellen Pope Property
Mary Ellen Pope - Owner
Frederick Mall Land Trust - Applicant.
Rezoning Case No. 001-96
The undersigned Owner and Applicant hereby voluntarily
proffer that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of
Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning of the Owner's 26.14
Acre tract of land lying on the East side of Apple Pie Ridge,
just North of Route 37 just West of Winchester in Stonewall
Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP,
the Applicant will pay to Frederick County, at the time an
application for a building permit for a lot is filed, the sure of
$3,571.00 ($489.00 for Parks and Recreation Department, and
$3,082.00 for Schools) plus $20.00 for the Round Hill Fire and
Rescue Company. In essence, the sum of $3,591.00 will be paid at
the time an application for a building permit far a lot is filed.
In addition, the following perpetual conditions are
proffered against the area to be rezoned:
1. The rezoned property shall not be subdivided into more
than twenty-nine (29) lots (including one lot for the existing
house on the property) and one additional parcel, to be conveved
P-02
Mar -01-96 03:48P Harrison & Johnston
Revision
to an adjacent lot owner.
2. No apartments, duplexes or other multi -family buildings
shall be constructed on the property.
3. No street shall connect directly to Apple Pie Ridge
Road and all twenty-nine (29) lots shall front on a street
connecting to Frontage Road or directly on Frontage Road.
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,
FREDERICK MALL LAND TRUST
- Applicant
BY. _............ — — -- .
James T. Anderson
Mary Ellen Pope - Owner
P_03
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
Mary Ellen Pope Property
I. Summary
MARL' -.1 EN POPE PROPERTY
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 1995
The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to
evaluate the property of Mary Ellen Pope in light of several major planning
issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
and the Frederick County Planning Commission. This document is prepared to
provide the impact analysis required to rezone the 26.14 acre property from
present Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP).
The property is suited for Residential Performance (RP) zoning, has adequate
public utilities, is located within the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan
designated area as an Urban Development Area (UDA), and is near a designated
interchange business development area. The property has an ideal location with
all infrastructure improvements currently in place. Adequate roads and utilities
serve this site, which is located near existing public school facilities and an
emerging commercial corridor. This site is surrounded by single family
residential uses similar to the use proposed. There is a fiscal development
impact. Current zoning, development, and subdivision requirements allow for
adequate measures to protect and mitigate any impacts to the surrounding
residential properties. Adequate measures are provided for in existing=;
development codes to provide for protection of all protected, environnlenntal�'
features.
� 4t cS
CS
II. Introduction ���'
ON
�TJX
The 26.14 acre property of the Mary Ellen Pope is located along the 6-!sii 'of
State Route 739 (Apple Pie Ridge Road) just northeast of the interchange
intersection of Routes 37 and 522 North. The property has frontage on Apple Pie
Ridge Road and Frontage Road F734 (Glen Tawber Road). This property is
located within 4800 feet of a major designated interchange business area and is
ideally located near existing public infrastructure. The parcel is identified as tax
parcel 42-((A))-198 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District and is currently zoned
Rural Areas (RA). Approximately five to seven homes could be built upon the
property under the current RA zoning district regulations.
I'
I
mm"It�.��
�I
I
sk.
0
,o � F+•
2U0 N Cmrron tMt
(S{O) 7,413
(540) ;
=t'-':C�Pine Ridge
'
Estates
S
t— �Ei'T, n
tocD
r*�.
N y
i S A D of
��.,• . ,�.,
F(Dj troperty of Mary
Ellen Pope
°
JL*
`�'
A A'.- LOCATION
MAP
3
Frederick County,
Virginia
')en.dwi
LO r,, ►.�
n°
K
tso-c as erea�.im orM
dwg. no: job no:
SHEET OF 5
drown by. ss date: Decernbet t9, 1995
' p'rrw«kbMxq.
ArfrAn 22401
t.—% "s-ItMw
approved b Cfsi scale: S"Qi0m
PP Y•
I'
I
mm"It�.��
�I
I
sk.
0
3
(5b 667- 36" 22601
pine
Ridge Estates
o
M
�€,
Property
P
of Mary Ellen Pope
AREA
TO BE REZONED
$+�Frederick
County,
Virginia
LO C
p "
150-C p,, Or Ukh orh.
dwy. no: `brin.dwq Job no:
SHEET 3 OF 5
drawn by. as dote: Decambor 19, 1495
I
12,Fm6.rtdbur9_Vt61^b
22401
aooroved by. CEN scale:
0 250 500 1000
N/F CgRTER ;
N/F Mc CLUNG
7-ir-S
05'.39'
7-,7--,—L W
26,14 ACP, eS
pP ZONl1Ua
'30E5N 09'42"30-
-57A
7A 77�-:905,546
A'Pz-� )0u77
739
/ / 1
r23.4W
N Te56' 0
81'03.30.6
20.00• W
ILA-*
00
(A (n
0W
J (. 1
N N�
rn
N 125,3 W
MARY -EN POPE PROPERTY
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 1995
Residential Performance (RP) zoning is planned for the property. The property is
located in the Urban Development Area and public water and wastewater
conveyance facilities are near the site. A preliminary site development
evaluation indicates that this site can easily support residential uses of the RP
zone, while providing compatibility of land uses with the existing surrounding
uses. There are no environmental features that would restrict development of
the site. Single family homes are planned, a compatible land use with
surrounding properties.
III. Planning Analysis
Site Suitabili!y - The property has no site specific development limiting factors.
The property appears well suited for Residential Performance (RP) zoning use
development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes,
flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors.
Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation
Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 29 and 23
as Swimley silt loam, Frederick-Poplimento loams.
Prime Agricultural Soils: The property does contain prime agricultural soils as
identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and the USDA Soil Survey.
Slopes - There are no steep slopes on this property. The topography is ideally suited for
residential development. Slopes generally range from 2% to 7% with a small portion of
the property above 7%.
Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property. The property is generally well drained
and has no low lying wet areas. There is no wetland vegetation that indicates the presence
of a wetland area.
Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property.
Flood Plain - The property is not located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plan
as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map tuber 51D(36{r�
00105B of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Dev , opment,,
Boundary map.
gi Rn
�S
WMch"tw. Kghb 22601
Q F+•
3 cr
(940) 667-2139
O
0
LO
d O
n wt
/so -c ass cweenam orbs
r a
F,~c**wa. Wgimle 2241
1l-
�.r
2
UJ!t?,
4r Q nL'�
Pine Ridge Estates
,I 1
Ellen Pope
o,
Virginia
SHEET 40F 5
'
i
0 250 500 1000
1 ' Iy �
1
Property of Mary
SOILS
Frederick County,
dW9. no: "ben.dwg I job no:
sa date: December 19. 199
by. CEM scale: 1"-25D'
N/f CARTER
I4C ,l
1
N/F Mc CLUNG
/7C
/6C
113 '
)
1
r J-_(_
-
�' _ 3913
)KOU77F 4t 7:59
MARY t- .EN POPE PROPERTY
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 1995
Adjoining Properties - Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties.
The primary impact concern on adjoining properties is the change of use from
open, rural land to a large lot, urban residential setting. The impacts of the
allowed residential uses on the surrounding uses is reduced through existing
zoning, master planning, distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening and
open space regulations. These along with the required zoning dimensional
requirements and the planned, larger lot, single family homes limit adjoining
property impacts. The uses proposed, single family homes, is the same land use
as the surrounding properties also single family homes.
The adjoining property to the north and east is developed as a single family
residential subdivision. To the south is Route 37 and a commercially developed
area.toe the west are existing public high school and elementary school facilities.
Zoning Review - The property is within the Urban Development Area
designated for urban type growth and development by the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan.
The property is currently zoned Rural Areas (RA) allowing by right a variety of
uses including large -lot housing units as well as agricultural uses. Housing types
allowed by right are single family modular, manufactured (mobile) and site -built.
Agricultural uses are not restricted and are not limited with setback, parking,
screening and buffering restrictions typical of other zoning district uses that
regulate commercial and industrial uses.
Under the Residential Performance (RP) zoning regulations a variety of housing
types are permitted with limiting performance zoning criteria. Single family
homes are proposed. The surrounding neighborhoods consist of primarily
single family homes. Continuation of the same housing pattern is encouraged
with comprehensive planning policies and zoning standards listed in the
Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed housing type of large
single family lots is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and
regulating planning policies.
There are no developmental impacts that affect the surrounding properties. The
impacts of the Residential Performance (RP) uses as proposed, on the
surrounding residential uses is minimized through existing zoning distance,
setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations.
8
MARY __EN POPE PROPERTY
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 1995
IV. Traffic Impacts
Traffic impacts are negligible for this property.
Impacts of vehicular access and turning movements on the adjoining properties
will be minimal. The property is currently allowed five to possibly seven RA
lots that will generate 50 to 70 trips per day. The projected increased impact for
twenty-eight total lots is 230 trips per day. (28 - 5 x 10 = 230).
International Traffic Engineer's Manual (ITE) indicates =that the average trip
generation is 9.55 per single family home for weekday trips. Peak hour ITE
figures show average trip generation is 1.01 for the hours of 4 and 6 pm. The
project at build out will generate approximately 280 trips per day with peak hour
weekday trips averaging about 28 trips.
Site access is proposed via Glen Tawber Road (F734) with no new street
connection planned for Apple Pie Ridge Road (739). Glen Tawber Road is a
frontage road, no secondary road traffic tabulations are listed. Glen Tawber Road
serves approximately 73 single family homes with a projected trip generation of
730 trips.
This property has frontage on Apple Pie Ridge Road (739) and no connections are
proposed as part of this development / rezoning. Apple Pie Ridge Road is
designated as a major collector road in the Frederick County Comprehensive
Plan - Functional Road Classification of Existing Roads. Major collector roads are
roads providing access between large areas of land and arterial roads. They
collect traffic form minor collectors and local roads. Major collectors provide
important through routes between arterial roads and for travel within the
County. Free traffic flows are maintained on major collectors. 1993 VDOT traffic
tabulations for the section of Apple Pie Ridge Road from the 522 North
intersection to Route 673 was 2,143 trips on the 1.660 mile section.
V. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts 2 1
There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems associat 'ditli=atk
project. The property is located within the area identified in the Fred�e-'ck�o ~`
Comprehensive Plan covering future sewer service. Currently this ert ,� T
be served b public sewer service.`
Y P
9
MARY L _N POPE PROPERTY
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 1995
Sewage service to this site can be provided by Frederick County Sanitation
Authority. An existing 8" sanitary sewer main located on the west side of Apple
Pie Ridge Road is within about 150' of this property.
VI. Water Supply Impacts
There are no water supply or transmission problems with this property. The
property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan covering future water service. Currently this property can
be served by public water service.
Water service is under the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. A minimum
of 8" water service is expected for the type of development. A 12" water main is
located along Apple Pie Ridge Road approximately 100' from the property.
Fire protections measures such as the installation of fire hydrants will be
addressed at the site development stage. The installation of fire protection
hydrants poses no problems. The installation of fire hydrants on the property
will improve the fire protection means of the surrounding properties as well as
the enhancing the protection of the property. The fire fighting capabilities of the
fire company covering this area will be enhanced with additional fire hydrants.
Under current RA zoning this property could be developed without any fire
hydrant protection measures.
VII. Drainage Facility Impacts
Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal site drainage
impacts. It is recommended that either suitable green space be allowed to reduce
run off amounts or that the increased run off be reduced prior to discharge from
the site. Additional storm water detention calculations will be presented with
final design which show no adverse impacts created by the imposition of storm
water on the existing downstream water course.
Drainage flows generally toward the north and west of the property.
Predevelopment runoff rates will be maintained using recognized storm water
management standards.
VIII. Solid Waste Cost
o
Solid waste impacts are measured in terms of waste generated :based upon'
P 4-:';g
pounds per capita per day.
10
MARY "_._EN POPE PROPERTY
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 1995
Solid waster collection is not provided on a door to door basis, rather solid waste
transfer stations are utilized for individual home disposal. The nearest transfer
station is located in nearby Albin.
IX. Historic impacts
This project area through past development of adjoining property has no known
significance. The area has been significantly developed to the west and south.
There are no structures currently located on the area to be rezoned that are of
historic significance. A review of the National Register, the Virginia Landmarks
Register and The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are
no known historic structures on this property.
X. Community Facilities
Education - This project will generate approximately 20 to 25 school age children
when the project is completely built out and developed. Total build out time is
projected to be within five to seven years. School impact costs are noted on the
attached impact model report prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff.
The monetary impact for Frederick County Public Schools is $3,082.00 per unit.
Parks and Recreation - This project would result in minimal impact on Parks
and Recreational facilities. Impact costs are noted on the attached impact model
report prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff. The monetary impact of
development for Frederick County Parks and Recreation is projected at $489.00.
Emergency Services Cost - There are no additional fire, rescue or sheriff facilities
anticipated with the development of the property using RP type uses.
Fire protection is available from the Round Hill Volunteer Fire and Rescue
Company. The planned RP rezoning will have all required site development
standards required by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no
fire protection problems associated with this property. All hydrants and fire
protection measures will be installed when the property is developed.
Rescue services are provided by the Round Hill Fire and Rescue Squad. Impact
costs are noted on the attached impact model report prepared by the Frederick
County Planning Staff. Fire and Rescue monetary impact is projected at $16.00
per unit.
Sheriff Department services protection will be required.
11
MARY r.— EN POPE PROPERTY
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 1995
M. Environmental Impacts
There are no known major environmental impacts associated with the rezoning
I n L., 10 T ., �.r:ll l,o certa.n m1n�JI neoatixrn imnnrtS
or this property from T.n L., .... . hers .6x"A b b r'"
due to the construction activity. These are to be minimized by proper
compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. The effects
on the down -stream impoundment and stream are minimal and in accordance
with local and state regulations. There is no known loss of irretrievable
resources involved with this project.
There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be
effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected.
XII. Fiscal Impacts
Fiscal impacts for the property are determined based upon the fiscal impact
model prepared by the Frederick County Department of Planning and
Development staff. The fiscal impact model results are attached in the appendix
of this report. Total monetary impacts of development for Frederick County
Public Schools and Frederick County Parks and Recreation is projected at
$103,564.00. Total monetary impacts for Fire and Rescue is projected at $458.00.
XIV. Other
There are no known other impacts.
I
X17 4
12
REZONING REQUEST PINE RIDGE ESTATES
Mary Ellen Pope Property Property Identification Number 44-(A)-198
Gainesboro Magisterial District
OUTPUT MODULE
Net Credit for
Fiscal taxes to Less
Capital Impact Capital Net Allowed Actual
Costs Credit Costs Im ac SFD's Impact
Fire Dept. 91 0 575 0 0 0
Rescue Dept. 76 0 0 0. 0 0
Elementary
Schools
40805
0
0
0
0
0
Middle
Schools
14475
0
- 13333
107996
18620
89376
High Schools
66949
0
0
0
0
0
Parks and
Recreation
179,' 4_
0
93
17141
2955
14185
TOTAL
139430
0
14701
124729
15664
103561
ADDENDUM
Fire and
Rescue 0 0 0 553 95 458
New Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contributions
NOTES: Model Run Date 12/20/95 EAW P.I.N. 42-A-198
Pope Rezoning. Assumes 29 SFD on 27.75 acres rezoned from RA to RP
NET IMPACT
$107996 / 29 homes = $3724 per home for schools
$17141 / 29 homes = $591 per home for parks and recreation
$553 / 29 homes = $19 per home for fire and rescue
LESS ALLOWED SFD
27.75 acres / 5 SFD per acre allowed in RA = 5 allowed SFD
ACTUALIMPACT
$89376 / 29 homes = $3082er home for schools
F toll
$14186 / 29 homes = $489 per home for parks and recreation5458 / 29 homes = $16.00 per home for fire and rescue', ���
REZONING REQUEST
Mary Ellen Pope Property
PINE RIDGE ESTATES
Property Identification Number 44-(A)-198
Gainesboro Magisterial District
MONETARY IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT
BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS BY CATEGORY
SCHOOLS $ 3,082.00 PER UNIT
PARKS $ 489.00 PER UNIT
TOTAL $ 3,571.00 PER UNIT
FIRE & RESCUE
$ 16.00 PER UNIT
�±• I R,:. ./ t A ic.�.:»fJ WtL.r-- I .•.....1 4ESY.4.V t.^,?dvo 1.11 •-.at Y.'... ,.--j
�,_z
2W NOfN carman
9a zZ°°'
Pine Ridge
Estates
o t'4'Property
of
Mary Ellen Pope
'
Ie+
��
AREA TO
BE REZONED
cD A
r
Frederick County,
Virginia
1—
dwg. no: `ban.dwg' Job no:
G
94130--c Owe Graanskh mt.
a i.4.'dubur w 22401approved
drawn by. as date: Uecarrlber 19. 1495
SHEET 3 4F 5
540 eae-2115
by. CEN scale: 1.-256
0
250 500
1000
0
N/F C•4RrFR \ !
NIF MC CLUNG
�- - j 05*,39'43" W
26,/.1 AC>t?eS
Pr ZOIVII\/a
N``z, 0 —9
O9'4T30p C <—L
57.9 77FE 905,54.
`OUB 7
08056',3()
81-03-3O, 81.03.30,,
20.00, W
OD
(A C4
0w
J 0
` j
LI
N AZ5?,3�' W
PC REVIEW: 3/6/96
BOS REVIEW:
C NDITI NAL )SE PERMIT 4001-96
HOWARD A. POHN
Cottage Occupation
Blacksmith Shop
LOCATION: This property is located at 709 Cattail Road (Route 731); entrance 0.37 miles
southeast of Hunting Ridge Road (Route 608).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 21-A-18
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoning: RA (Residential Performance); Land
Use: Residential and Agricultural
PROPOSED USE: To establish a black smithing business.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Trans ortation: No objection to a conditional use permit being
issued for this property. However, brush must be cut on either side of entrance to
improve sight distance. Should conditions change, it may be necessary to upgrade your
existing entrance to meet VDOT minimum commercial entrance design standards.
Health Department: Health Department has no objection as long as there is no
increased water use and the owner/applicant is the sole employee.
Inspections Department: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code and Section 306, Use Group F (Factory and industrial) 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. Permit shall be required for Change of
Use on Existing Building.
Fire Marshal: Access to all structures must be maintained at all times for emergency
vehicles.
Page 2
Howard A. Pohn, CUP #001-96
Planning and Zoning: Staff has been advised that the applicant desires to use an
accessory building on his property to produce ornamental iron products sometime in the
future. This would be a permitted cottage occupation with an approved CUP. A visit to
this property on February 22, 1996 revealed that there is a blacksmithing forge setup in a
concrete block building on the property adjacent to the residence located there. The
structures are located approximately 3/4 mile from Cattaii_Run Road (Rt 731) and are not
visible from the road or any adjoining property. It does not appear that allowing this use
would have any negative impact. It was observed that two accessory uses were being
supplied electricity by wires that were running on top of the ground from the residence to
the buildings. This is a dangerous situation and must be corrected immediately. It was
also observed that the forge in the accessory building was vented by a stove pipe through
the roof and sticking approximately 6' above the roof. This pipe did not appear to have
any screening or spark arresting mechanism installed to preclude a spark from the coal-
fired forge from escaping into the adjacent wooded area. This needs to be corrected since
there is high potential for forest fire because the structure sits in a wooded area and the
ground is covered with leaves and other highly combustible material. It would be
appropriate for the fire marshal to inspect this aspect of the facility to ensure a safe
operation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 3/6/96 MEETING: Staffs recommendation is for
approval since the request clearly fits the definition of a cottage occupation and there does not
appear to be any potential negative impacts. If a recommendation for approval is made, the
following conditions are suggested as appropriate for this location:
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.
File: K: WRCMN.COMMENTS.POHN.CUP
49A
A 498
49C 49
490 49E
49F
�C
Sey 51
�1e
CRAVE HILL 11 P<
19
5 4a
0
SWin cg
22
8
7 8
20
18 17
19 y 15
�g 18
41
42
43
44
"UP #001-96 PIN: 21-A-1 �
Howard & Sheila Pohn
z
48
78
7C
7A
4,
21
8
21A
g
0
CRAVE HILL 11 P<
19
5 4a
0
SWin cg
22
8
7 8
20
18 17
19 y 15
�g 18
41
42
43
44
"UP #001-96 PIN: 21-A-1 �
Howard & Sheila Pohn
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTYO VIRGINIA
rLeGepki
2 i6 96
1. Applicant (The applicant if the X� owner other)
NAME: Howard A. Pohn
ADDRESS: 709 Cattail Road, Winchester, VA 22603
TELEPHONE 1-540-722-2139 (Contact Lee A. Ebert 1-540-667-3233)
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
Howard A. Pohn and Sheila A. Pohn
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
709 Cattail Road (Route 731)
Entrance 0.37 Miles Southeast of Hunting Ridge Road Route 608)
4. The property has a road frontage of 875 feet and a
depth of 1300 feet and consists of 48.95 acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by Howard A. & Sheila A. Pohn as
evidenced by deed from R. Braunschwei„Q & A. Pennvpacker recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no.: 643 on page 366 , as recorded in the
records of the Clerk _ of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 21000-A-0000-0018
Magisterial District Gainesboro
Current Zoning RA
7. Adjoining Property:
USE
North Resid_ntial��—
East _A-ricultural
South Residential
West Residential
ZONING
RA
RA
RA
RA
S. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
C 1,-0-f
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: EXISTING 12 FT. X 19 FT. CONCRETE BLOCK BUILDING
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.)
David
Livingston
Address 1388hHunting VRidge Road
A 22603
Bonnie
Livingston
Property ID# 21000 -A -0000-013B
Richard A. Wright
Address 1474 Hunting Ridge Road
Winch VA 22603
property ID# 21000-A-0000-0016
Philip
R. Yount
Address Post Office Box 515
Winchester VA 22604
Property ID# 21000-A-0000-0017
Janice Yount
Richard S. Cather
Addressunting Ridge Road
Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID#
-A-
21000-A-0000-0012
Address 248 West Redoubt Lane
Addres
Alson H. Smith
Property ID# 21000-A-0000-0042
Howard
A. Pohn
Address 12142 Stirrup Road
Reston, VA 22091
Sheila
A. Pohn
Property ID# 31000-A-0000-0001
Davis, Jeffrey P.O. Bog 1393, Winchester, VA 22604
Property ID# 21000 -A -0000-0043A
9
e
Q
cr
lt1
0
Z
h -
Z
I
Coll. Please use this or your sketch of the property. Show
0 proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including
SCO measurements to all property lines.
F: -RICHARD S. CATHER 230— 58
� RT. 731 -
(f CATTAIL ROAt
W !- N
n.. V Z I
-J z Q to
, I
N
230 — 58
CL � , to 48.95 ACRES
BONNIE S11q
OaV �O QV1 jVGST l V /NCSTON
ON
A!�8 16
I" = 400'
w
-
CL � , to 48.95 ACRES
BONNIE S11q
OaV �O QV1 jVGST l V /NCSTON
ON
A!�8 16
I" = 400'
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
�iL
11L
Owners' Mailing Address I 'Z- i 1-/z- S f „�r,, P 12j 1`c izeq 1
Owners' Telephone No. 7 u 7G 41:3'z L.,,�� Syo- 7,1-z -zi3 y
O BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
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, Planner II k,
RE: Buffer And Screening Amendment
DATE: February 20, 1996
Staff has been directed to advertise an amendment to Section 165-37, Buffer and Screening
Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the amount of
required buffer distance in conjunction with specific performance design standards. 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.
The proposed amendment will be reviewed by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
during their regular meeting in February. Staff will present information regarding this discussion
during the Planning Commission meeting. The DRRS has begun a comprehensive review of all components
of the existing buffer and screening requirements. It is anticipated that this review will be
completed by the DRRS in the Spring, and that additional amendments will be considered by the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors at that time.
Included under this agenda item is -the proposed ordinance amendment for your review and consideration.
Staff asks that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final
resolution.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ARTICLE IV - Supplementary Use Regulations
165-37D Zoning District Buffers
(7) Land proposed to be developed in the M-1, Light Industrial District, and the M-2, 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
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.
C. A full screen is required to be created within the reduced buffer distance area which
shall be comprised of a continuous six-foot high earth berm 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.
ARTICLE IV - Supplementary Use Regulations
145-37D Zoning District Buffer
(7) Land proposed to be developed in the M-1, Light Industrial District, and the M-2, 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
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 County, Virginia 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.
PC REVIEW: 3/6/96
BOS REVIEW: 3/27/96 (Q)
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN -0001-96
HILL VALLEY
LOCATION: This property is located in the northwest corner of Valley Mill and Greenwood Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55 -A -56F
.ORC U 01 14 I t 9 91
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONIN & U : Zoning: RP (Rmderzal Perfom-a =) Land Use: Residential and
vacant.
PROPOSED USE: 54 Single -Family Detached Cluster Homes �C J Q O
I�
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
11 giinia, Dent of TranspQrtation: See attached %tters from Robert R Childress dated December
4, 1995 and February 6, 1996.
Sanitation Authority: First Review - correct and resubmit - one item (received 9-21-95); 2nd
Review - correct and resubmit - one item (received 2-14-96)
Inspections Department: First Review - Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code and Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building
Code/1993. Shall comment on lots at the time of subdivision plan review. 2nd Review - No
additional comments are necessary at this time.
Fire Marshal: See attached letter dated November 27,1995 from Douglas A. Kiracofe, Fire Marshal
Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space and recreational unit requirements.
County Engineer. . See attached letter dated November 21,1995, from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr.,
Page 2
Hill Valley MDP #001-96
P.E., Director of Public Works
Planning and Zoning: See attached letter dated 11-22-95 from Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I
Current Zoning
The land parcel that comprises the proposed Hill Valley Preliminary Master Development Plan
is zoned RP, Residential Performance.
Preliminary Master Development Plan Comments
The preliminary master development plan calls for the development of 54 single family detached
cluster homes on an 11.62 acre portion of the 26.123 acre site. The remaining 14.50 acres will
consist of 12 acres of open space, and 2.5 acres of street right-of-way. The parcel is zoned
Residential Performance (RP), permitting the proposed development.
This development would create an overall gross density of approximately 2.067 dwelling units
per acre which complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and meets the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan. The MDP indicates that the minimum lot size within the proposed
development is 8,000 square feet; therefore, recreational facilities are not required.
Technical Plan Requirements
The preliminary master development plan incorporates the property identified by Property
Identification Number 55 -A -56F, consisting of 26.123 acres.
The site consists of 8 acres (31 percent) of woodlands and 3 acres (12 percent) of steep
slopes. The proposed development would disturb 2 acres (25 percent) of the woodlands. One-
half acre (17 percent) of the steep slopes would be disturbed. This complies with the Zoning
Ordinance requirements that no more than 25 percent of the woodlands and steep slopes be
disturbed.
Open space requirements state that no more than 50% of the required open space shall consist
of environmental features such as steep slopes and wetlands. As submitted, the preliminary
MDP does not clearly indicate the total acreage consisting of environmental features included
in open space. This issue will need attention before its conformity may be determined.
All symbols that are used in the MDP should be defined in the legend.
Site Layout
The MDP application indicates that construction for this project will be conducted in one
phase. This should be noted on the submitted preliminary MDP.
Page 3
Hill Valley MDP #001-96
Access to the proposed development will be via an entrance on Greenwood Road, and the creation
of a new road which would transverse the property in a east -west manner providing for internal
circulation. This proposed development's circulation system should be revised to coincide
with the proposed improvements for the Greenwood Road and Valley Mill Road intersection. The
MDP should provide a permanent entrance onto a state maintained road, not a temporary entrance
that will require additional funding relocation from the Frederick County Secondary Road Plan
funds when the intersection improvements are conducted. Based on the proposed internal road
layout, Brandywine Lane should be considered the primary entrance for the development and be
constructed rather than a temporary entrance.
The use of road circulations involving interconnected parcels is encouraged by Frederick
County. Previous connection was intended via Blossom Drive on the northwest of the property.
Due to private ownership of this adjacent property, this connection may not be possible.
An appropriate stormwater management plan should also be included on the master development
plan. As necessary, on-site stormwater management facilities should be designated and
supported by stormwater calculations.
Residential separation buffers and zoning district buffering are not required for this site.
As required, a road efficiency buffer has been proposed along the eastern portion of the site;
this buffer would lessen the impact Greenwood Road traffic would have on the development.
Deeds of Dedication
Section 144-32 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance requires the creation of a
property owners association for the continuous maintenance and management of all common open
areas, easements, storm water management facilities, and dedicated facilities associated
within an approved subdivision. Staff believes that it is important to understand this
requirement at this phase of the planning process. Maintenance must be provided by the
residents of the proposed subdivision, not by Frederick County,
STAFF RE NDA NS: Staffnecommends approval of this development proposal. The proposed
housing type is consistent with the RP Zoning District requirements, adequate area exists to satisfy
open space requirements, and the proposed master development plan indicates appropriate buffer
and screening to lessen the impacts that Greenwood Road would have on the proposed single family
dwellings. Staff asks that the Planning Commission recommendation include the need to ensure that
all review agency comments are adequately addressed. Staff believes that the Planning Commission
should consider the following items during consideration of the master development plan:
Page 4
Hill Valley MDP #001-96
The development of single family detached cluster homes complies with the present zoning
of the property and is compatible with the surrounding residential developments;
The Greenwood Road and Valley Mill Road intersection will be realigned and improved in
the near future. This proposed master development plan should establish an internal
circulation system and entrance that compliments the planned intersection improvements.
No additional costs should be levied on the County and State to accomplish the intersection
improvements, as a result of this proposed master development plan;
The overall concept and design of the proposed master development plan conforms with the
requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance.
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
P -O. BOX 278
EDINBURG.22824-0278
February 6, 1996
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr.,, P.E., V.P.
C/O G. W. Clifford a Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Chuck:
WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P. E.
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TEL (540) 984-5600
FAX (540) 984.5607
Ref: Hill Valley Subdivision
Route 656
Frederick County
As you know, we have completed our review of the referenced project's preliminary
master development plan. Your office has submitted three different plans with various
access schemes and internal street layouts for the project. For clarity, the various
submitted tie-in points for the entrance roads into the subdivision are as follows:
• Point A: Tie-in to existing Route 656 almost across from Route 659 east to form a
staggered cross intersection.
• Point B: Tie-in to existing (and proposed) Route 656 approximately 500' to the
north of Point A.
• Point C: Tie-in to proposed Route 659 approximately 350' west of proposed
Route 656 (near Dove property).
I am enclosing copies of your plans which are summarized as follows:
• Attachment 1 shows temporary tie-in Point A and future tie-in by VDOT to Point B.
• Attachment 2 is similar to Attachment 1, but has different internal street layouts and
it is not clear whether Point A tie-in is temporary or permanent.
• Attachment 313 at 3C shows temporary tie-in to Point A and future tie- n at-P_oint C.
Our comments are as follows:
FCBX96_
1. No connection, either temporary or permanent can be allowe, 41RPp fiAAE�Dyf
minimum sight distance requirements are not met at this i
locatiori�-Additi&(d�al t i
,u UEYLL(��MjT ;,�
not suitable due to the poor configuration of the existing double -e $� intersection
Routes 656 and 659. Adding the Hill Valley street connection 'Ouj e - r. to
problems with the existing intersection.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
As you know we have _ road project (#0656-034-118-5L_) currently in design
phase to relocate this intersection It is planned to replace the double "T" intersection 4
with a cross intersection elevated approximately 20' above the existing one. The Hill
Valley Street connection would have to be relocated to eliminate an unworkable fifth
leg to this intersection. This could add considerable cost to the project whether
relocated to Point B or C.
Even if right-of-way and easements were reserved now for relocating the entrance to
Point B, additional project costs could reach $100,000 plus the cost of major utility
adjustment. Some existing overhead utility lines that lie west of Point B would have to
be relocated.
2. We recommend your client construct the Hill Valley entrance at Point B. This
location appears to have adequate sight distance and will not be significantly affected
by the future road project. We realize there are major costs as discussed in number
one above. However, this should be your client's responsibility.
3. Your latest submittal shows a temporary tie-in at Point A and a future tie-in at
Point C. Again, we feel a Point A tie-in is unacceptable as explained in number one
above. However, our preliminary review finds Point C would be an acceptable future
tie-in, but the entrance road could only be constructed after the planned Route 656
Project is built.
Point C involves intersecting Route 659 in a fill over a proposed long box culvert on a
high skew. The proposed box may be long enough to accommodate the street
connection without extending it, which if necessary could be expensive.
Additionally, for your reference we have enclosed a copy of our current design for
Project #0656-034-118, C502 (Attachment 4). We have also marked the approximate
proposed alignment of Route 656/659 and the necessary right-of-way take on your
client's property on Attachment 2B.
Through copy of this letter to Mr. Bob Watkins we are apprising him of our comments
and restating a street connection allowed at Point A is undesirable and could add
considerable costs to the Route 656 project.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the above comments, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
William H. Bushman, Trans. Resident Engineer
6�� 4d, 4cv- Z"O--w
By: Robert B. Childress, Permit/Subd. Spec. Supv.
RBC/rf
Enclosures
xc: T. L. ]ackson, ). B. Diamond, S. A. Meinikoff, R. W. Watkins, H. E. Strawsnyder
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
t,
COMMON` EALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
PO. BOX 278
EDINBURG. 22824-0278
December 4, 1995
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin
C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Steve:
W
WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P. E.
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TEL (540) 984-5600
FAX (540) 984-5607
Ref: Hill Valley Estates
Route 656
Frederick County
We have received your revised master development plan dated November 6, 1995 for
the referenced project. Since the project falls within the limits of our planned
improvements to the Route 656/659 intersection, we have forwarded your plan to our
District Location & Design Section for review. Once we receive any comments we will
forward them to you.
In the meantime if you have any questions, please let me know.
RBC/rf
xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff
Mr. R. W. Watkins
Sincerely,
Robert B. Childress
Trans. Permits & Subdivision
Specialist Supervisor
- - .. --- r, -r 1111 1CPITI ICV
� ��hYr i�'JZ:t'��f'.`�. ...''. SY J`. f i'..�Y. .� �; �(i Ai ..Y�'l�1'.i�
f��: � � -1 J .ri, Y i i
w .e
f.1 AFib 'Jb,gr„+�''SM11. 74�p.{� RJ♦�if�lR�'�4 ��i`��12'l �J,(� 1`7 ty�A. t�
}: ! � \ ht �y' '• i ii� ) �'~ 1�4 a �.n �L h � H '[�{ �.y� � "+•
1
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINLA
FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT '
9 N. Loudoun Street, 2nd Floor
`}I:I
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Thomas W. Owens
Douglas A. Kiracofe
Director
Fire Marshal
November 27, 1995
G.W. Clifford and Associates
200 N. Cameron St.
Winchester; Virginia 22601
Attn: Steve Gyurisin
Dear Steve;
I've looked at the re -submitted Master Development Plan for Hill Valley, Phases I and II.
The re -configuration of the streets, and the changes in the proposed road width have
corrected the issues I had with the original version of this plan. However, with the new
plan, there is a defeciency in hydrant coverage. It is approximately 600' from the
intersection at Greenwood Road, and the first hydrant on Hill Valley Drive. An
additional hydrant will be needed near this intersection to maintain coverage at a
maximum of 400' intervals. This spacing is the standard in Frederick County for single
family dwellings.
If any hydrants are to be relocated, due to VDOT plans for this intersection, that would
help you meet the distance requirements, please indicate this on the plans.
If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
S' y
Douglas A. Kiracofe
Fire Marshal
cc: Evan Wyatt, Planner
Eddie Keeler, Chief Co. 18
file
DIRECTOR - (703) 665-5618 FIRE MARSHAL - (703) 665-6350 FAX - (703) 678-0682
tl'vi:.ea.,'Q�,.. �i:'. '.P�fp�la✓y�r �7��1•h
COUNTY of FREDERICK
November 21, 1995
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin
Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Master Development Plan for Hill Valley Subdivision
Preliminary Master Plan Number 2
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Steve:
Public Works Department
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director
703/665-5643
Fax: 703/678-0682
We have reviewed the preliminary master plan number 2 for the Hill Valley subdivision
and offer the following comments:
1. Stormwater management will be required for this subdivision. A tentative location
of a stormwater management pond shall be shown on the master development plan.
2. Delineate the existing stream and 100 year flood plain associated with this stream.
3. The proposed intersection of Hill Valley Drive and the proposed Valley Mill Road
relocation appears to be very questionable, especially considering the potential for
a considerable elevation differential. The particular intersection should be re-
evaluated with an emphasis on the Brandywine Lane Connection provided this
latter intersection meets the vertical curve sight distance requirements.
4. Complete topographic contours within the area designated as open space.
5. Because of the relatively steep topographic conditions, it appears that detailed
grading plans should be prepared for the entire subdivision. These plans should
include finished floor elevations, entrance locations, lot grading and the location of
drainage structures.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding the above comments.
Sincerely,
Harvi
Direc
107 North Kent Stn
Winchester, Virgini,
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
November 22, 1995
Mr. Stephen Gyurisin
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Preliminary Master Development Plan Review of Hill Valley
Dear Steve:
I have had an opportunity to review the above referenced master development plan. The final
master development plan should be revised to reflect the following comments. Please:
1) Provide the telephone numbers for both the owner and developer.
2) Provide the Registered Professional Engineer Certificate and signature.
3) Provide the existing and proposed location of Valley Mill Road, east of Greenwood Road.
4) Provide the correct uses and zoning for all adjoining properties.
5) Clarify the total acreage in environmental features. Provide the disturbed percentages for
each environmental feature; i.e., 40 acres woodlands, 20 acres disturbed (50%).
6) Provide the location and arrangement of electric and gas utilities.
7) Specify the location and arrangement of the development entrance onto a state maintained
road. The proposed entrance layout conflicts with the proposed Greenwood Road and
Valley Mill Road relocations. Please design a road system that coincides with the
proposed relocation of Greenwood and Valley Mill Roads.
8) Indicate the location of existing utilities (water, sewer, electric, gas) and provide
statements concerning connections to the utilities.
9) Include a stormwater management plan.
10) Provide a table depicting the amount, percentage of total, and type of environmental
features that will be protected in common open space.
11) Provide a conceptual plan for stormwater management and the locations of stormwater
management facilities that are planned.
12) Provide topographic contour lines for the entire property; all environmental features
should be shown.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Mr. Stephen Gyurisin, Hill Valley
November 22, 1995
Please revise the final master development plan to reflect these comments. As you requested, this
office will be available to discuss our review comments before the preliminary master
development plan is placed on the Planning Commission's agenda. We will need to receive all
review agency comment prior to inclusion in the Planning Commission agenda.
Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
�wrence
Planner I
ERL/bah
MDP #001-96 PIN:55—A-56F
Hill Valley
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Frederick County
Virginia
Date:% . /� /99 Application #
OWNERS
(Please list the names of a owners ar
APPLICANT/AGENT:
Address:
Daytime Phone Number
DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY:
Address:
Phone Number
Contact Name
es in interest
.ti A'OV1995
M RECEIVED
DEPT. OF nanH�Q
PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHECKLIST
The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in
insuring that all required information is provided or is available
to allow review by the County.
This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the
preliminary master development plan. All required items must be
provided on the PMDP.
Background Information:
1. Development's name:
2. Location of property:
3. Total area of property: I lz 3
4. Property ID 0 (14 Digit) .57!57
5. Property zoning and present use
,5-17 �1-
6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: �Oa Z0/l//A/(v
7. Proposed Uses:
8. Magisterial District: /✓`
9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original Amended
8
Nov 1995
RECEIVE&
P, DFPr, OF PIANNINQ �.
General Information:
1. Have the following items been included?
North arrow
Yes No
Scale
Yes
No
Legend
Yeses
No
Boundary Survey
Yeses
No
Total Area
Yes_
No
Topography
Yes
No
Project Title
Yes
No
Preparation and Revision Date
Yes ✓
No
Applicant's Signed
Yes-
No
Consent Statement
2. Number of phases proposed? Z-
3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan?
Yes_ No
4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated?
Yes_ No
5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project
and all public roads within 2,000 feet.
Yes !/ No
6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes Y No
7. Are environmental features clearly shown?
Yes ✓No
8. Describe the following environmental features:
Total Area o Disturbed
(Acres) by development
Floodplains
Lakes and ponds
Natural retention= --
areas p
Steep slopes —�-
,(150 or more) �•�j� O �`
Woodlands 7 n
9
Acres in
Open Space
O
DV' 4 ,Ic
NOVr995
RECEIVE
OF R MIV�ID
ANY�� r
9. Are the following shown on the master development plan?
Street layout
Entrances
Parking areas
Utilities (mains)
Yes -No
Yes�No
Yes No
Yes ,7No
10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided?
Yes ./No
11. Have all historical structures bee identifi�?
Yesm I ��-
Residential Uses
If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP,
(Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following
items should be completed.
1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed?
a2 - ✓(/
2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each
phase:
Open space acreage Yes V/ ----,No
Acreage in each housing type Yes-7_No
Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes-�No
Total acreage Yes�No
Number of dwellings of each type Yes No
3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open
space? 2
A ✓ 4 'j
•�' NW 1995
10 OF
eke p�,�`"a ,
4.
Are recreational facilities
required?
Yes No
5.
What types of recreational
facilities
are proposed? -
6.
Are
separation buffers required?
Yes
No Ll-�
7.
Are
road efficiency buffers required?
Yes
p. -'No
8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required?
Yes No ✓
9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping des5� bed by
the plan with profiles or examples? Yes ✓ No
NOV1995
OF
�w,r
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
345
� I
Adjoining
Property Owners
Tax Mao ID
Nam
Address
Vag
55C-7-5-16
Clyde L. & Carol A. Vanmeter
532 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
55C-7-5-17
David E. & Debra M. Smith
105 Van Buren Court
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
55C-7-5-23
Robert J. & Katie E. Matzell
101 Van Buren Court
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
55C-7-5-26
Randolph J. Larrick & William Ward
P.O. Box 444
Winchester, VA 22604
Rs
55-A-39
Molden Real Estate Corp.
2400 Valley Avenue
Winchester, VA 22601
Rs
55-A-46
Jacob E. & Edna D. Randall
443 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
55 A 50
Mark E., Sr. & Susan M. Boczar
457 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
55 -A -50A
Wafter M. & Martha E. Gruber
467 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
55-A-51
Virginia Dorothy Cooper
477 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
55-A-52
Gary ELbert Bayliss
487 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
55-A-53
Mernie A. Eskridge
497 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
55 -A -53A
Mernie A. Eskridge
497 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
345
� I
55-A-54
Ercel P. Swanson
55-A-55
Myrtle A. Koon
55-A-56
Vera V. Dove
55 -A -56A
Kay Yvonne Goerlich
55 -A -56B
Ronald G. McDonald
55 -A -56C
Thomas O. & Tamara L. Marsh
55 -A -56D
Carroll L. Bridgetorth
55 -A -56E
Henry A. & Rosemary Budzynski
55 -A -56F
Vera V. Dove
55-A-57
Dorothy V. Stultz
55-A-58
Herbert J. & Janet M. Pope
55-A-59
Edward D. Orndorff
55-A-60
Kenneth E. Jenkins, Sr.
55B-3-2-89
Shane P. & Billie J. McBrearty
513 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
543 Valley Mill Road
Winchester,VA 22602
549 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
523 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
P.O. Box 2321
Winchester, VA 22604
136 Blossom Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
140 Blossom Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
324 Opequon Avenue
Winchester, VA 22601
549 Valley Mill Road
Winchester, VA 22602
321 Weems Lane
Winchester, VA 22601
325 Greenwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
P.O. Box 2466
Winchester, VA 22604
307 Greenwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
220 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
Rs
Rs
Rs
Rs
Rs
Rs
Rs
V
Rs
Rs
Rs
Rs
Rs
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RA
RP
RA
RA
RA
556-3-2-91
Jesse J. Richardson
224 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
5513-3-2-93
Jesse J. Richardson
224 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
5513-3-2-57
Duane M. & Dorothy E. Conrad
200 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
5513-3-2-59
Duane M. & Dorothy E. Conrad
200 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
5513-3-2-61
Robert L. & Greta F. Fries
206 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
558-3-2-63
Robert L. & Greta F. Fries
206 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
5513-3-2-65
Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority
P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22604
P
RP
5513-3-2-67
Franklin D. Taylor
489 Hopwell Road
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Rs
RP
5513-3-2-69
Vernon G. & Catherine M. Combs
114 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
55B-3-2-83
Delores C. DeHaven
214 Dogwood Road
Go Delores Hoover
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
5513-3-2-85
James William Nethers
216 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
5513-3-2-87
David L. & Nancy L. Franks
218 Dogwood Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
55C-3-1-1
Jeffery A. & Pamela Denise Gillum
100 Woodys Place
55C-3-1-2
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
R t� 5 6 7 r°
Dennis D. & Lorrie L. Collins
102 Woodys Place
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
PA�
cp
IX-
55C-3-1-3
Henry M. Mercier, Jr.
104 Woodys Place
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
55C-3-1-4
Kenneth Rhoads
106 Woodys Place
Winchester,VA 22602
Rs
RP
55C-3-1-5
Joseph A. D-Arcangelis
108 Woodys Place
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
55C-3-1-6
James M. & Wilma S. Jesse
110 Woodys Place
Winchester, VA 22602
Rs
RP
54K-1 -A
Ash Hollow Estates Homeowners
P.O. Box 3113
Winchester, VA 22604
Os
RP
RP - Residential Performance Zoning RA a Rural Area Zoning
Rs - Residential Use P - Public Use V s Vacant Use Os a Open Space
�1
I
I }+int
;..
\ s\ L
, L -al
ja
� � 1111 , �' : ij '• /+ _'.� I ? -:, _ ��i�/'/ /' / /
till ,l 1 11
\\
yi "ti <irJtr'rr �- iwg
i 11 / / l ��� �,hh �"' '�� "'>". 1 1 1 ,.� I •'�/ .
-
�•Ifill /
>i! ,'i I/ r 1 � r 1 I ami• J' I t b ' / i!'! 4/I I l
r(l
--:7`er
��✓l.' � , 5 ' 111111 1
`(y.
� I- it ,,.\•. � ��`
r i h1
,� \\ : o ` \'►'\
�!i '\��
LAN
d..
ACRES
LOTS: - 12.167 ACRES -
R/W: 02.520 ACRES
OPEN SPACE: 11.436 ACRES
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/678-0682
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Robert Watkins, Director X1441
SUBJECT: 1996 Retreat Results
DATE: February 16, 1996
The following are some of the issues and strategies discussed at the 1996 Retreat:
Issue: Too many formal approvals with the Planning Commission are required for any one
project.
Strategy: Use the administrative approval process more.
Issue: Feedback is needed on the ordinances and amendments concerning how they are actually
working.
Strategy: Conduct Planning Commission field tours.
Issue: Informal discussions cause problems because they are viewed by the public as preliminary
commitments.
Strategy: Anyone should be able to present projects to the Planning Commission. However,
the Planning Commission should only discuss projects when they are before the Commission
for action.
Issue: Too many tablings make it difficult for the public to follow the process.
Strategy: Work on the Planning Commission by-laws to limit tablings.
Issue: There is a need for new manufacturing sites with rail access, good road access, and
necessary infrastructure that are available at an appropriate cost.
Strategy: Undertake a major planning effort to look at rail corridor areas north and south of
Winchester.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Michael T. Ruddy, Planner I p P,
Subject: 1995 Frederick Countv Annual Report
Date: February 22, 1996
On an annual basis, the planning staff compiles a report that is intended to provide the Frederick
County Planning Commission with information to evaluate the previous years planning activities
and to aid in comprehensive planning for the upcoming year.
The Frederick County Annual Report for 1995 is enclosed for your review and comment. After
receiving your input staff will make any necessary revisions and then proceed with a final
version.
MTR/bah
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
FREDERICK COUNTY
ANNUAL REPORT, 1995
Prepared by the Frederick County Department
of Planning and Development
January 1996
Annual Report for 1995 1
The Frederick Cyun Annual Report for 1995 is compiled to provide the Frederick County Planning
Comn:issio, th`:.....� ..ation to be used iu the review of the Comprehensive Plan. The report has
been organized into three sections. Section one describes the state of the County and highlights
current development trends. Progress made by planning staff and current planning issues are covered
in sections two and three.
Table of Contents:
State of the County
Population
Building Pern
Family and Hi
Planning S
Transportation' Comm
Route 3 7
Battlefield Preservatio
Historic Preservation
Mapping and Graphics
Planning Issues
Appendices A,B,C,D,E, & F
/LA
L"".5 g-
2
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
Annual Report for 1995 2
Population
The most accurate znfo,:natlon available on population groVvLii within the County is compiled every
ten years by the U.S. Census Bureau. Figure 1 shows the population changes that have occurred in
Frederick County since 1900. Although percentage growth during the 1980's was not as great the
previous decade, the County did experiencethe highest total growth between 1980 and 1990. During
this decade the County's population increased by 11,573 persons.
50
40
c
e
h 30
r
20
10
0
Figure 1: Frederick County Population (1900 - 1990)
1900 IQ 10 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Year
The population of Frederick County is expected to continue to increase. Since 1990, annual
population growth has averaged 2.8%. This figure was derived from the current population estimates
(shown in Table 1) prepared by the Virginia Center for Public Service. The population in 1994 was
estimated at 50,800 and was estimated to reach 50,896 in 1995. The final 1995 figure is expected
to be exceed the estimate. The Virginia Employment Commission projects that the County will reach
a population of 55,823 by the year 2000.
Table 1: Current Population and Population Projections for Frederick County
year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2000 2010
Area
Frederick County
Winchester
source i z 2 a I 3 4 4
45,723 47,700 48,800 49,700 50,800 50,896 55,823 64,878
21,947 22,200 22,400 22,600 22,900 23,056 24,113 26,234
Total Area 67,670 69,900 71,200 72,300 73,700 73,952 79,936 91,112
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau -1. I 'irginia Center for Public Service: final estimate -2, provisional estimate -3.
I'irginia Emplavment Commission -3.
t
I
1900 IQ 10 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Year
The population of Frederick County is expected to continue to increase. Since 1990, annual
population growth has averaged 2.8%. This figure was derived from the current population estimates
(shown in Table 1) prepared by the Virginia Center for Public Service. The population in 1994 was
estimated at 50,800 and was estimated to reach 50,896 in 1995. The final 1995 figure is expected
to be exceed the estimate. The Virginia Employment Commission projects that the County will reach
a population of 55,823 by the year 2000.
Table 1: Current Population and Population Projections for Frederick County
year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2000 2010
Area
Frederick County
Winchester
source i z 2 a I 3 4 4
45,723 47,700 48,800 49,700 50,800 50,896 55,823 64,878
21,947 22,200 22,400 22,600 22,900 23,056 24,113 26,234
Total Area 67,670 69,900 71,200 72,300 73,700 73,952 79,936 91,112
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau -1. I 'irginia Center for Public Service: final estimate -2, provisional estimate -3.
I'irginia Emplavment Commission -3.
t
Annual Report for 1995
Building Permits
A ac s.. uuiiuuig rermits wr crew mesiaenceS (19if5-1995
Year
Single
Family
Multi-
family
Mobile
Homes
Total
1995
412
102
56
570
1994
451
141
140
732
1993
447
202
62
711
1992
381
99
40
520
1991
385
148
61
594
1990
459
262
59
780
1989
682.
238
59
979
1988
661
244
75
980
1987
642
242
85
969
1986
463
53
67
583
1985
409
209
68
686
3
.uurce. rreuernca t.uunty Department of inspections
Table 2 shows the number of building permits issued for each residential category. Building Permits
were issued for the construction of 570 new homes in Frederick County in 1995. This is a decrease
of 22 % from 1994's figure of 732 building permits.6 995's figures indicate a slow down from the
40 % increase in building permits issued between 1992 and 1994, they are similar to the numbers
experienced during 1991 and 1992]Figure 2 indicates the make up of building permits issued for 40 ��4■ J
new residences in recent years. In 1995, the percent of new residential building permits issued for
single family residences increased by 10 % to 72% when compared to 1994's figure (62%). The 1 .t
number of building permits issued for multi -family housing remained similar to last year, while the
number for new mobile homes dropped by 9%, to 10% of the years new residential building permits. So
Figure 2: Building Permits Issued in Frederick County
for New Residential Units 0985 -1995) ,f
1000
800
i
600
ao
_c
400
200
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
®Single Family OMulti-family OMobile Homes
Annual Report for 1995
Family and Household Income
E
According to Center for Public Service estimates, 14,474 families resided in Frederick County in
1995. The median income for these families was estimated to be $36,178 in 1995. This is
approximately $10.000 less than the estimated median family income for Virginia as a whole.
Median family income in Frederick County is projected to increase by approximately 3.5% in 1996
to $37.52I.
Median household income differs from median family income in that it includes the income of all
persons 15 years or older, living in a single household, whether they are related or not. The estimated
median household income in Frederick County for 1995 was $31,829. This is approximately $8,000
less than the estimated median household income for Virginia as a who e.
is figure is also estimate to >ncr`�s�Gy approxtm o to 96's median household income
figure of $33,011.
Households
The average household size has been declining during the past three decades. In 1980, the average
number of persons within a household was 2.98 people. Household size was reduced to 2.78 people
per household by 1990.
i auie s: r.srnmarea 1Numner or Households and Average Household Size (1960 - 1990
Year
Population
Households
Average Household Size
-
1960
21,941
6,045
3.63
1970
24,107
8,570
2.81
1980
43,150
11,467
3.76
1990
45,723
16,470
2.78
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
i � NIg 4- k'q!7L�O(3
Figure 3: Residential Development in Frederick County
by Year, 1990 - 1995
1000
800
600
0
400
200
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
The number of
residential lots
created in rural and
urban areas of the
County is
determined by the
number of lots
created as a result of
subdivision
applications (urban)
and administrative
subdivisions (rural)
that were approved.
Annual Report for 1995 5
Figure 3 on the previous page shows the recent history of residential lot development in Frederick
County. The number of residential lots created in the rural portions of Frederick County declined
once again in 1995. In 1995, sixty-one rural residential lots were approved as opposed t 6, n 1994.
The number of re idential lots create in the urban onions of Frederick Count also decreased r y eased in
199. Eighty-six ban residential lots were created in 1995 as opposed tdqin 1994.
Four master development plans were approved in 1995. One was for industrial uses with the
remaining three for residential purposes. The three residential plans propose fifty-six new residential
dwellings which is considerably less than in 1994 when 148 residential dwellings were proposed.
The average gross density of the residential master development plans approved in 1995 was 1.8
dwellings per acre. This is also a decrease from 1994 when the average gross density was 2.8
dwellings per acre.
Nonresidential Developments in Frederick County
1 able 4: Expenditures on Nonresidential Construction in Frederick Countv
Year
Industrial
Office, Bank &
Stores &
Other
Total
Professional
Mercantile
1994
$4,500.0
$725.0
$1,799.0
$0.0
$7,024.0
1993
$2,309.0
$1,014.5
$2,475.0
$838.6
$6,637.1
1992
$21,000.0
$321.0
$3,800.0
$2,970.0
$28,091.0
1991
$2,800.0
$326.0
$120.0
$1,280.4
$4,526.4
1990
$8,278.8
$2,190.6
$949.4
$1,861.8
$13,280.6
1989
$2,222.0
$322.0
$4,758.3
$1,861.8
$9,164.1
1988
$4,256.4
$350.0
$4,339.5
$1,526.6
$10,472.5
1987
$4,755.0
$1,915.3
$3,409.0
$2,033.1
$12,112.4
1986
$2,547.5
$2,163.4
$2,389.0
$2,289.5
$9,389.4
1985
$3,679.0
$151.5
$429.0
$7,622.2
$11,881.7
1984
$1,788.8
$326.5
$327.0
$2,102.7
$4,545.0
. t..."'U' jvr uVIcr r figures snown to inousanas
Table 4 shows the most recent figures for nonresidential construction in Frederick County which
were obtained through the University of Virginia's Center for Public Service. In 1994, Frederick
County had $10,935 265 worth of nonresidential construction. This is an increase of 60% over 1993's
totals, but is 'ter' A ` "
4;�sef 1992's extraordinary expenditure figure of $28 million. Only one industrial
development was constructed in 1994. However, this accounted for $4.5 million in expenditures.
Construction during 1994 in the other categories was also less than during 1993 and 1992.
Annual Report for 1995
Employment
0
The Virginia Employment Commission states that total employment within the privkte Sector ;i,
Frederick County was 7,962 in 1985. During the past decade this figure has increased at an average
annual rate of 5.6% to the 1995 total of 12,434.
1 anle -n: Employment by Hector in Ereder>ick County (1985 - 1995
Sector
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
Frederick County Total
7,962
9,163
11,571
10,060
11,515
12,434
Agricultural Services
404
450
387 -
323
473
380
Mining
122
144
172
157
148
153
Contract Construction
1,013
1,262
1,447
1,122
1,126
1,235
Manufacturing
2,473
2,715
3,607
2,908
4,127
4,294
Transportation and Utilities
727
746
841
944
754
910
Wholesale Trade
848
1,034
1,356
937
857
955
Retail Trade
1,168
1,411
1,911
1,869
1,867
1,875
Finance, Insurance, Real Est.
150
163
434
367
418
490
Services
1,042
1,237
1,416
1,433
1,745
2,142
Nonclassifiable
15
1
0
0
0
0
Source: Virginia Employmeni Commission.
Table 5, above, shows the distribution of employees in each employment sector for the past decade.
Figure 4 highlights the percentage of total employees in each employment sector for 1995.
Manufacturing continues to play a major role in Frederick County's economy accounting for nearly
35% of total private employment. The percentage of people employed in service related jobs
increased from 15.1% in 1993 to 17.2% in 1995. Percentage of employment in other sectors
remained similar to in 1993.
Figure 4: Percentage of Employment by Sector
in Frederick County, 1995
(34.5%) Manufacturing
(7.3%) Transportation and Utilities
(7.7%) Wholesale Trade
(15.1%) Retail
(9.9%) Contract Construction
(1.2%) Mining
(3.1°/9) Agricultural Services
(17.2°/x) Services
(3.91/6) Finance. Insurance. & Real Est
\)s! 6,JV, �O k�1
Annual Report for 1995 7
Planning Staff Efforts for 1995
The Planning and Development staff continues to serve the Planning Commission, the Board of
Supervisors and Frederick County citizens. In addition, the staff continues to work closely with
committees, subcommittees, and boards that are responsible for considering issues regarding the
County's resources, development, and future. Highlighted in the following pages are the activities
and planning efforts of the staff in association with these bodies.
In order to serve the public more efficiently, staff continues to work to improve administrative and
review procedures. It is the intention of the staff to provide the public with substantial assistance
in response to various requests in an expedient manner. The staff is encouraging a streamlined
approach to the County's permitting process. This will help maintain and encourage economic
growth.
The staff continues to update application packages and supply informational brochures to the public
on variances, conditional use permits, developing land, rezonings, obtaining building permits, and
dividing rural area land. In addition, staff participates in numerous informational seminars designed
to provide staff with the tools to better serve the citizens of Frederick County.
Application Reviews
The Planning and Development Department reviewed a significant number of development
applications, plans, and permits during 1995. Table 6 highlights the number of applications reviewed
in Frederick County last year and figure 5 on the next page shows the recent history of applications
and permits reviewed by planning staff. Appendices A,B,C,D,E, and F at the back of this report
detail each individual application submitted by application type.
i ame b: summary of Development Applications Reviewed in 1995
Application submitted
Approved
Action
Denied
Taken
Pending
Withdrawn
Total
Variances
20
1
0
5
26
Site Plans
40
0
12
0
52
Rezonings
3
1
1
1
6
Subdivisions
7
0
9
0
16
Conditional Use Permits
10
1
3
0
14
Master Development Plans
4
0
1
0
5
Administrative Subdivisions
61
0
62
0
123
Uj , 1u...,r.ig unu L.everopmenr
Annual Report for 1995 8
Figure 5: Types of Applications and Permits Reviewed (1990 -1995)
60
V1
50
L
40
40
a
ea
30
e
20
c
c
Q 10
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
The total number of applications reviewed by the Department of Planning and Development in 1995
was higher than in 1994. The greatest increase was in the number of site plans reviewed by the staff.
This number increased by 48% to 52 during 1995. The number of other applications reviewed by the
staff remained relatively consistent with the amount reviewed during the previous year. Rezonings
and master development plans were the exceptions, they were slightly higher in 1994.
Violations
In 1995, 73 zoning ordinance violations were filed with the Frederick County Planning Department.
This was slightly less than in 1994 when 80 violations were filed. Figure 6 on the next page shows
the total number of violations in each magisterial district and also the type of violation. The majority
of complaints investigated by planning staff were about citizens who store too many inoperable
vehicles on their property or those who do not screen them properly. The Back Creek Magisterial
District had the overwhelming majority of violations in 1995. In addition to 9 violations carried over
from previous years, 28 of the violations received in 1995 were resolved during the year.
Annual Report for 1995 9
Figure 6: Total and Types of Active Violations Filed in 1995
by Magisterial District
ao
35
30
h
a 25
20
ID
5
0
Back Creek Stonewall Opequon Gamesboro Shawnee
Magisterial District
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee
T C9
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee conducts, reviews and discusses various
requests, studies, and projects that affect development within the County.
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee completed the update of this year's
Comprehensive Policy Plan. As usual, much of the work consisted of updating statistical
information such as school enrollment and population figures. A number of minor editorial
corrections where also made. Additional items that were modified included the Sewer and Water
Map and the Eastern Road Plan Map. The update to the Eastern Road Plan consisted of eliminating
a north -south and an east -west collector road that would split the Third Winchester Battlefield site
and a couple of short, minor collectors that fed into these major collectors.
By far the most significant additions to the plan were the goals and action plan or the Battlefield
preservation effort, and goals and policies from the Round Hill Land Use Plan. The preservation
information comes directly from the text of the Battlefield Plan that was produced by the Battlefield
Task Force. The policies for the Round Hill Community come from the plan prepared by the
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee produced after months of work and two community
meetings in Round Hill.
The subcommittee also reviewed and recommended project priorities for the 1996 Capital
Improvements Plan. The staff and subcommittee continue to use the capital improvements evaluation
system consisting of seven weighted criteria to aid in prioritization of requested projects. The draft
of the Capital Improvements Plan has been prepared and went before the Planning Commission in
February of 1996.
Annual Report for 1995 10
Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) is responsible for considering
issues and proposals that are related to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 165 of the
Code of Frederick Cou=), and the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 144 of the
Code of Frederick County). During 1995, the DRRS completed three significant items as directed
by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. These items involved the creation of
the Interstate Area Overlay District which is a new Article in the Zoning Ordinance, the
establishment of new design standards for minor collector roads, a comprehensive revision to the
subdivision street standards within the Subdivision Ordinance, and -the proposed amendment to the
requirements for commercial business signs as recommended by the Chamber of Commerce Corridor
Appearance Task Force.
The DRRS recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow veterinary offices,
veterinary clinics, and veterinary hospitals in the Residential Performance District, and
recommended that reduced structural setbacks should apply to decks and accessory structures that
are attached to townhouses and weak -link townhouses in the Residential Performance District.
The DRRS recommended denial of a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow stand alone
restaurants in the B-1, Neighborhood Business District, to allow portable ice cream stands as a
temporary use in the B-1, Neighborhood Business District, and to reduce the minimum lot size for
family division lots in the Rural Areas District from two acres to one acre.
The DRRS began discussion on the need to develop building location survey standards which would
apply to all zoning districts, as well as the need to determine appropriate minimum infrastructure
improvements within residential developments which would need to be complete prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit.
The Subcommittee will be finalizing work on the creation of a Vested Rights Policy Statement for
Frederick County in early 1996, and will begin work on the need to create performance standards
for telecommunication towers, as well as complete a comprehensive review of the current standards
for buffer and screening requirements.
Transportation Committee
The Transportation Committee is responsible for considering all transportation and road
improvement issues for Frederick County. The Transportation Committee is a Board of Supervisors
Committee that makes recommendations on all transportation issues to the Board of Supervisors
through the Planning Commission.
Annual Report for 1995 11
During 1995, the Transportation Committee held public hearings for the review and approval of the
Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan and the Frederick County Secondary Road
...provement Plan. T hc Primary Road Improvement Plan was presented to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board during the March 1995 Pre -allocation Hearing, and the Secondary Road Plan
was updated to include new hard surface improvement projects and incidental construction projects.
The Transportation Committee worked with the Frederick County Sheriffs Department to secure
safety grant funds through the Division of Motor Vehicles to accommodate the cost associated with
providing additional DUI checkpoints and neighborhood patrols. The Transportation Committee
also worked with the Economic Development Commission to establish transportation strategies
along Valley Pike in the Kernstown area. These strategies are envisioned to assist with new
industrial development in this area.
The Transportation Committee reviewed the proposed Winchester Area Transportation Study
(WATS) Alternative 5.0. The Committee declined to forward a recommendation on this proposal
until the Commonwealth Transportation Board makes a final decision on the proposed Route 37
extension. The Committee also considered potential safety programs which could be funded through
the VDOT Highway Safety 402 Fund Program. The Committee will continue discussion on this
issue in 1996.
Route 37
Frederick County continues to forward its recommendation for the completion of an eastern bypass
loop, connecting the northern and southern ends of route 37 via alternative "C" to the Virginia
Department of Transportation. A hearing with the Commonwealth Transportation Board regarding
the route 37 proposal is scheduled for early in 1996.At this time it is hoped the proposal will be
endorsed by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Battlefield Preservation
The Battlefield Task Force has completed the Frederick County - Winchester Battlefield Network
Plan. This plan has been adopted by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Adoption by the
Winchester City Council is currently pending. The Battlefield Network Plan describes goals for the
network and includes strategies and actions to be undertaken to achieve these goals. A substantial
public effort was undertaken in order to produce the plan for the battlefield park network. A
battlefield park network in Frederick County and Winchester will provide substantial economic and
educational benefits.
Annual Report for 1995 12
Historic Preservation
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) began to discuss the need for developing guidelines
for new commercial development in the County's historic areas. The need for commercial
development guidelines was prompted by a master development plan that proposed single family
dwellings and some commercial businesses located on the land that surrounds Star Fort. The goal
of these guidelines is to assist the developer at Star Fort and other historic property owners, in
designing projects that will enhance and preserve the historical elements of the County.
In April, the first historic plaques were presented by the Board of Supervisors to numerous properties
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Old Frederick County Courthouse received
plaque number one. Fifteen historic plaques were awarded during 1995.
Mapping and Graphics
�ea VY 4
Great progress has been made toward the conversion of the County's digital base maps to an AjUla& %,, 9 "4y
format, but there is still much work to be accomplished. Using programs such as ArcCAD, and a Sy"- � , y4 -
very labor intensive methodology, the data is being converted from the original AutoCAD base to (�GI S�
mapping forms usable under a Windows-based program named ArcView.
As Phase II of the GIS project goes into place n co f new g
an , more than nine different Departments and agencies will be able to access this
data from a GIS server and use the data to produce individualized digital and paper products.
New data is created daily and entered into the current storage system for future use. With the
increase in available data, there has also been an increased demand on staff and production within
the Mapping and Graphics staff of the Department. Citizen and business interest in the data has also
increasedraftd d?
An additional effort wit4 ma in an g phics has bee tile installation of a connection to the
�,, s so.,,_s/p- . �, 1 4�' F �� a�a.. < f� i f t.... nt of
Internet. ,
the-&y&Wm. The staff continues to search any and all information sources that will assist in creating
a comprehensive and highly useful system.
Future efforts by staff will include access to County data through a home page on the Internet and
a terminal fixed with a user friendly interface on ArcView. These avenues of data dispersal may
alleviate part of the outgoing workload by staff, and allow them to concentrate more on data creation,
collection and modification.
Annual Report for 1995 13
Planning Issues
The need to carefully determine the desired location of urban development.
The need to identify the impacts of new development areas in the County.
The need to insure that business corridors develop in a manner which is attractive, functional, and
SPS` �I reflects positively on the community.
b�-
The need to provide key economic development sites along main corridors and railways.
S7e need to streamline the County's review process in order to encourage and stimulate economic
growth.
The need to develop and practice methods that encourage public participation in the planning
process.
The need to provide citizens with the County's ordinance, developing regulations, and special
projects.
)�'T'he need to protect property owners rights.
The need to coordinate planning efforts with the City of Winchester, and the Towns of Stephens City
and Middletown.
The need to evaluate and provide appropriate water and service to various areas in and near the
Urban Development Area.
9ThPe need to develop better means to monitor development and the cumulative impacts of
elvelo mens
The need to carefully plan road systems to avoid road safety problems and alleviate congestion.
The ;Teed to develop policies, standards, and procedures concerning historic sites and areas.
The need for greater public education efforts in the area of historic preservation.
The need to plan and implement systematic strategyfor the preservation and use ofbattlefteldsand
other historic resources as a catalyst for economic development.
The need to carefully evaluate capital improvement project requests.
The need to provide information and advice to the public and decision makers.
The need to consider the impacts of new and existing developments on water quality in the County.
The need to consider the impacts of adding new allowed uses within zoning districts.
Appendix A
Site Pians Reviewed in Frederick County in 1995
FILE # SITE PLAN TITLE DESCRIPTION/USE MAGISTERIAL DATE
DISTRICT APPROVED
001-95
002-95
003-95
004-95
005-95
006-95
007-95
008-95
009-95
010-95
011-95
012-95
013-95
014-95
015-95
016-95
017-95
018-95
019-95
020-95
021-95
022-95
023-95
024-95
025-95
026-95
027-95
028-95
029-95
030-95
031-95
032-95
033-95
034-95
035-95
036-95
037-95
038-95
039-95
040-95
041-95
042-95
043-95
044-95
045-95
046-95
047-95
048-95
049-95
050-95
051-95
052-95
LAKEVIEW GARDEN APTS
F&M BANK
TOAN & ASSOCIATES
WINCHESTER REGIONAL
FIRST VA SQUARE
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS
AMOCO FOAM
EXXON SERVICE STATIO
FT. COLLIER LEASE #1
MAD BOMBER
PACKS FROZEN CUSTARD
RED APPLE DELI
CHURCH OF CHRIST MT.
HOSS'S STEAK HOUSE
LENOIR CITY CO. (16)
K&J INVESTMENTS
LAKEVIEW TOWNHOUSES
FREDERICK CO. LANDFL
CARROLL CONSTRUCTION
HCMF DEVL. CORP.
FRED. CO. SANITATION
REGENCY LAKES ESTATE
REDLAND UNITED MTH
INN AT VAUCLUSE SPRG
DAWSONS INVESTMT.INC
MOBIL CHEMICAL CO.
WINCHESTER ELECTRIC
SHOCKEY BROTHERS INC
MACEDONIA UNITED MET
RED BUD ELEMENTARY
GODS GLORY LAND
AMOCO CONVENIENCE CT
PAYNE WELL DRILLING
SOUTHERN STATES
JAMES WOOD HIGH ADD
TRAINING TOTS PRESCL
RITE AID PHARMACY
BUTLER MFG.
POWER TECH
SHERANDO HIGH ADD.
TIMBER RIDGE ADM.
HORIZON DEVELOPMENT
REGENCY LAKES SEC E
MARK J. TENENBAUM
GARBER ICE CREAM
PROFESS MOBIL HOME
AROCENTER BUSIN LOT4
SHENANDOAH MEM PARK
DOERWALDT DENTAL OFF
HARDEE'S-MOBIL OIL
DK ERECTORS
ALBIN RIDGE-PHASEIII
APAR'T'MENTS
SH
04/17/95
BANK W/ DRIVE UP WIN
SH
02/22/95
OFFICE AND WAREHOUSING
ST
02/14/95
HANGERIOFFICES
SH
06/30/95
AMOCO/BURGER KING
GB
04/17/95
HOTEL
OP
04/14/95
STORAGE AREA
ST
04/10/95
SERVICE STATION
ST
07/06/95
WAREHOUSE ADDITION :
ST
03/24/95
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
SH
06/01/95
ICE CREAM STAND
BC
04/18/95
DELI
OP
06/30/95
CHURCH
BC
06/09/95
RESTRUANT
SH
06/07/95
WAREHOUSE
ST
07/11/95
WAREHOUSE
ST
06/09/95
TOWNHOUSES
SH
06/28195
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
SH
07/24/95
CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS
ST
06/26/95
ADDITIONS TO VANGUIL
ST
01/10/96
HEADQUARTERS
SH
08/16/95
MANUFACTURED HOMES
ST
.09/19/95
CHURCH
GB
09/+06/95
BED & BREAKFEAST
OP
07/28/95
WAREHOUSE
BC
09/18/95
INDUSTRIAL
BC
08/08/95
WAREHOUSE
ST
08/30/95
WAREHOUSE
ST
08/03/95
CHURCH
SH
Pending
SCHOOL
ST
10/09/95
CHURCH RETREAT
BC
09/21/95
CONVENIENCE STORE/GA
GB
12/08/95
WELL DRILLING
ST
08/31/95
FUEL STORAGE/RETAU,
BC
11/07/9S
FOUR SMALL ADDITIONS
GB
11/17/95
SCHOOL
BC
10/05/95
PHARMACY
OP
Pending
MANUFACTURING
ST
10/06/95
COMMERCIAL
ST
11/15/95
EDUCATION
OP
01/03/96
SCHOOL
GB
01/02/96
COMMERCIAL
SH
Pending
RESIDENTIAL
ST
Pending
METAL FABRICATION SH
SH
11/27/95
COMMERCIAL
SH
02/01/96
MOBILDMODULAR HOME
ST
Pending
WAREHOUSE FACILITY
SH
Pending
STORAGE BUILDING
SH
01/23/96
MEDICAL OFFICE
OP
Pending
RESTAURANT/SERVICE S
BC
Pending
MAINTENANCE SHOP
GB
Pending
WHOLESALE/STORAGE
GB
Pending
Appendices B,C, & D
Rezonings Reviewed in 1995
FILE # APPLICANTS NAME OLD NEW ACREAGE-- MAGISTERIAL FINAL
ZONING ZONING DISTRICT DATE
001-95
RIDGEWAY, WAYNE
RA
B3
�- 2.04
GB
—Denied
002-95
FRED. CO. SANITATION
RA
B2
3.4
SH
07/12/95
003-95
JOHN TAUBER
B2
B3
2.15
ST
10/1I/95
004-95
FLYING J INC
RA
B3
3.65
ST
10/11/95
005-95
JAMES T. WILSON
B1
B2
2.99
OP
W/dmwn
006-95
WOODSIDE
RA
RP
36.45
OP
Peng
Subdivisions Reviewed in 1995
FILE # APPLICANTS NAME ZONING # OFLOTS ACREAGE MAGISTERIAL FINAL
DISTRICT DATE
001-95
SARATOGA MEADOWS
RP
42
19.45
SH
04/03/95
002-95
WINC-FRED IDC
MI
2
9.65
BC
07/17/95
003-95
WINC. FRED. CO. IDC
Ml
4
10.2
BC
07/17/95
004-95
SUE YOST
B2
1
7.78
GB
06/15/95
005-95
LENOIR CITY CO.
MI
1
3.49
GB
08/10/95
006-95
RT&T PARTNERSHIP
B2
1
29:6
BC
Pending
007-95
GREENWOOD ROAD
RP
5
2.83
SH
Pending
008-95
MANDEL
B1
2
0.8
OP
09/13/95
009-95
J.I.C. LTD, INDUSTRL
M2
2
8.5
SH
Pending
010-95
STAR FORT SEC. I
RP
21
7.57
ST
Peng
011-95
FREDTWN. EST. 10&11
RP
34
15.47
OP
12/20/95
012-95
WINC-FRED CO IDC
Ml
2
BC
Pending
013-95
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
RP
21
17.2
ST
Pending
014-95
HFG PARTNERSHIP
B2
2
2.91
BC
Pig
015-95
AEROCENTER BUS. PARK
Ml
4
9.61
SH
02/02/96
016-95
S & S DEV. RITE AIDE
B2/M2
2
3.64
OP
Peng
r
N , >''" —�U
� , � S ?
Master Development PIans Reviewed in 1995
FILE # APPLICANTS NAME ZONING DWELLING TOTAL MAGISTERIAL FINAL
UNITS ACREAGE DISTRICTS DATE
001-95
VALLEY MILL ESTATES
RP 22
16
ST
06/19/95
002-95
COVENTRY COURTS REV.
RP 34
14.52
SH
06/19/95
003-95
REGENCY LAKES EST.RV
MH -
76.8
ST
07/07/95
004-95
J.I.C. LTD, INDUSTRL
M2 -
8.5
SH
10/11/95
005-95
DR. RAYMOND FISH
B2/B3 -
20.93
ST
Pending
4�4-� is 1,
; 0 t.
pi�' 't !� " � P'�C"
Conditional Use Permits Reviewed in 1995
FILE # APPLICANTS NAA-- 01 -
USE MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
Appendices E & F
FINAL
DATE
001-95
SHEFFIELD, MICHAEL �' -
PET SUPPLIER INDUSTR
BC
0322/95
002-95
MYERS, BARRY D. ;; '
BED & BREAKFAST
BC
0322/95
003-95
BAILEY, RAYMOND : `
AUTO REPAIR W/O BODY
GB
04/26/95
004-95
GARDNER, ROGER
AUTO GARAGE W/O BODY
GB
0524/95
005-95
ROY M. WHITE
COTTAGE -WOODWORKING/
BC
07/12/95
006-95
WELCH, BRUCE E.
VETERINARY HOSPITAL
OP
08/09/95
007-95
PLASTERS, MATT
AUTO REPAIR W/O BODY
GB
08/09/95
008-95
CHARLES W. GOFF
GUN AND SMALL ENGINE
GB
10/11/95
009-95
VETO ANGELONE
RESIDENCE W/ KENNEL
BC
10/111'95
010-95
EDMISTON, JOE
DOG KENNEL
BC
Denied
011-95
HARDEES & MOBIL
RESTAURANT, GAS & CO
BC
1025/95
012-95
SUTPHIN, EDWARD
COTTAGE -SMALL ENGINE
OP
Pending
013-95
NAT HUMANE ED SOCIETY
EXPANSION OF EXISTIN
ST
Pending
014-95
MERRTIT, DONALD R
PORTA-POTTIE DISTRIB
GB
Pending
Variances Reviewed in 1995
FILE #
APPLICANTS NAME
MAGIS TEN L
DISTRICT
FINAL
DATE
001-95
GIROUX, TIMOTHY,KEVIN
BC
0321/95
002-95
NEELY, DARROLL,PATRICIA
GB
0321/95
003-95
POWERS, RONALD D.
SH
04/18/95
004-95
BROWN, BOBBY &AUDREY
OP
w/awn
005-95
REDLAND CHURCH
GB
05/16/95
006-95
O.L. PAYNE
ST
05/16/95
007-95
EXXON CORPORATION
ST
0620/95
008-95
JENNINGS, CHRISTOPHER
ST
0620/95
009-95
SHANHOLTZ, RICK SR.
ST
07/18/95
010-95
MICHAEL, LOYD
BC
07/18/95
011-95
O.L. PAYNE
ST
07/18/95
012-95
DAVID RITCHIE
OP
08/15/95
013-95
MOLDEN REAL ESTATE
ST
08/15/95
014-95
TIMOTHY DAYHUFF
ST
09/19/95
015-95
JAMES KIRBY
ST
09/19/95
016-95
WINCHESTER COUNTERTP
ST
09/19/95
017-95
ANTHONY RUSSO
OP
w/awn
018-95
GARY I KERNS
BC
Denied
019-95
PATRIOT HOMES
SH
10/17/95
020-95
RICHARD COMER
OP
10/17/95
021-95
WILLIAM BATTAILE
GB
1121/95
022-95
JAMES SIRBAUGH
BC
11/21/95
023-95
SHERANDO HIGH
OP
11/21/95
024-95
FRANK IDDINGS
SH
w/drawn
025-95
THEODORA REZBA
BC
w/drawn
026-95
PROF. MOBILE HOMES
ST
w/drawn