PC 03-20-96 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
MARCH 20, 1996
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes of February 7 and February 21, 1996 ........................ A
2) Bi -monthly Report .................................................... B
3) Committee Reports ................................................... C
4) Citizen Comments .................................................... D
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Vested Rights Policy Statement - to consider the establishment of a Vested Rights
Policy Statement for Frederick County. This Policy statement will define development
and design criteria that will maintain a vested interest when delineated on approved
master development plans, subdivision design plans, subdivision plats and site
development plans.
(Mr. Wyatt)......................................................... E
PUBLIC MEETINGS
6) Subdivision Application #001-96 of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 12 & 13 for
a request to subdivide an 11.3496 -acre tract into 30 lots. This property is located east of
Stephens City, northeast of Fredericktowne Estates - Section 5-8 and southeast of
Section 11, in the Opequon Magisterial District, and is identified as a portion of the
parcel identified with PIN 75-A-72.
(Mr. Miller)......................................................... F
2
7) Subdivision Application #002-96 of Premier Place for a request to subdivide a five -
acre tract into four lots. This property is located on the west side of U.S. Route 522
South, north and west of the intersection of U.S. Route 522 and VA Route 645 in the
Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified as PIN 64-A-1OA.
(Mr. Miller)......................................................... G
OTHER
8) Article from VIRGINIA REVIEW Environment & Quality of Life, Jan./Feb. `96
Land Use Planning Is Key To Successful Development & Quality of Life ......... H
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
February 7, 1996.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.,
Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District;
S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Robert A.
Morris, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Marjorie H.
Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro District; George
L. Romine, Citizen at Large. Robert M. Sager, Board'Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto,
Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; and Richard C. Ours, Opequon District
Staff Present Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary, W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator,
Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes
Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6 1995 AND JANUARY 3 1996
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the minutes of
December 6, 1995 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the minutes of
January 3, 1996 were unanimously approved as presented.
2
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
Transportation Committee - 02/6/96 Mtg.
Mr. Watkins reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the Primary Road
Allocation Plan, which is the plan prepared each year requesting funding from the State for primary
road projects. Mr. Watkins said the plan will be brought before the Commission for review in the
near future.
Winchester Plannine Commission
Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the Winchester City Planning Commission is discussing
ordinances that will be proposed to preserve single family housing in certain areas of the City and
reduce the number of apartments. He said that they are also beginning review and update of the
Winchester City Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Conditional Use Permit #014-95 of Donald R. Merritt to re-establish a non -conforming use for
the storage and distribution of porta-potties. This property is located at 558 Marple Road
(Route 654) and is identified with PIN #41-A-122 in the Gainesboro District.
Action - Recommended Denial
Mr. Miller presented photographs of the site. He then presented the background
information and review agency comments. Mr. Miller said that the applicant, Mr. Donald Merritt,
is requesting to use a building on property owned by John E. Shelly to store portable toilets for
distribution. Mr. Miller said that the storage of portable toilets would be accessory to a primary use
of providing this service. He explained that since the primary use is not permitted in the RA Zoning
District, it would be questionable as to whether this use is of lesser or equal nonconformity. W.
3
Miller said that the staff believed that allowing this use would be allowing a more intense use that is
more nonconf�.
Mr. Miller said that the scope of the proposal is of a magnitude outside of the
capability of the structure that is proposed to be used for the storage.' He said that the location is on
a hill and is clearly visible from several adjoining residences and there is a fairly dense residential use
in this area. Mr. Miller continued, stating that he had received 14 phone calls in opposition to this
request, which is more than he has received for any other CUP he has ever reviewed. Mr. Miller
stated that the staff was recommending denial of this request because it is not clearly established that
this use may be allowed under the nonconforming use provisions, because of the current conditions
at the site, and because of the potential impacts on surrounding properties.
Members of the Commission asked Mr. Miller to describe the primary business and
asked if it had been determined that the business was a legal non -conforming use. Mr. Miller
explained that the Merritts' business is located at their home, down the road from the proposed CUP,
and is a septic system pump and haul operation, with several large trucks, a roto -rooter service, with
two trucks, and a porta-potty business. Mr. Miller said none of these businesses are authorized in
the RA Zoning District in which they are located. He said that charges have been filed for operation
of an illegal business and a court trial is pending on the matter.
Mr. Donald R Merritt, Jr. came forward and stated that he was the owner of Merritt's
Sanitation Roto -Rooter Service and B&D Porta -Potties. He said that he has been operating the
septic service for 20 years and the roto -rooter service for 17 years. Mr. Merritt said that the portable
toilets were located on his property; however, the Zoning Administrator had received a complaint
about them and he was told to remove the toilets from the property. Mr. Merritt said that he moved
the toilets to Mr. John Shelly's property and complaints were received about them being stored there.
Mr. Merritt stated that he is looking for another place, however, he felt the business and industrial
land in the county was too expensive. Mr. Merritt said that he has a business license and has been
paying taxes on his business each year.
Mr. Miller clarified that a business license does not authorize a business at a given
location --only the zoning of the land permits a business to be authorized.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came
forward:
Mrs. Abrell came forward to speak in favor of the conditional use permit. Mrs. Abrell
said that Mr. Merritt's business is not the only business in this immediate area. She felt it was a clean
operation and that everyone in the area uses the service. Mrs. Abrell felt the business license issue
was misleading for the average citizen in that one would assume a business was legal if a business
license was obtained.
Mrs. Jeanie Merritt, wife of Donald R. Merrit, Jr., came forward to speak in favor
4
of the conditional use permit. She said that she had proof that Mr. John Shelly's business has been
in operation since the 1960's. Mrs. Merritt also stated that their business has been in operation since
1975-76 and she just found out from the Zoning Administrator that the business was illegal.
The following persons came forward to speak in opposition to the conditional use
permit:
Mr. Alfred H. Feltner, adjoining property owner, had several complaints about Mr.
Merritt's Septic Tank Cleaning and Porta -Potties operation. His complaints included the dumping
of sewage on the property, spilling sewage while transferring it between trucks, odors emitting from
the operation, and the devaluation of his property and home value. Mr. Feltner also had concerns
about the health risks associated with sewage being dumped and spilled on the ground and the
contamination of ground water and creeks. Mr. Feltner said that he has been putting up with the
odors and the dumping for years. He said that Mr. Merritt has drained his truck and has placed
portable toilets as close as 20' from Mr. Feltner's property. Mr. Feltner said that he contacted the
Health Department and they in turn have contacted the State Water Control Board. Mr. Feltner said
that Mr. Merritt has been in operation 2 '/2 years since he was first notified that his business was
illegal and since that time, has purchased more trucks instead of purchasing property elsewhere that
is zoned properly for his business. Mr. Feltner presented photographs to the Commission.
Mrs. Hazel Shanholtz, adjoining property owner, said that Mr. Merritt has been a
source of harassment to her since his business began. Mrs. Shanholtz said that Mr. Merritt wanted
to cut through her fence and dump sewage into her woods, however, she would not allow him. She
said that she contacted the Department of Agriculture concerning what Mr. Merritt wanted to dump
and they told her that it would render the ground sterile for 2-3 years. She said that Mr. Merritt has
dumped black fluid out on the main road in front of her driveway; he has a hose propped up against
her fence and in the summer, it emits a terrible odor. She said that Mr. Merritt has dumped 50' from
her well and she was concerned about contamination of her water source. Mrs. Shanholtz said that
she is concerned that Mr. Merritt has no bathroom facilities for his employees. She said that he also
doesn't have a place to put snow when he clears his lot. She said that Mr. Merritt has placed snow
into her fence and just recently, unloaded a bucket of snow on top of her fence and damaged it. Mrs.
Shanholtz said that she has put up with retaliation from him for not doing what he wanted her to do.
Mr. Bruce A. Clark, adjoining property owner, was concerned about the devaluation
of his property, the odors, and disruption of the residential neighborhood.
Mr. Steve Messick, neighborhood resident, was concerned about the devaluation of
his property and he was also concerned about the health hazards from dumping of sewage on the
ground.
Mr. Sid Messick, neighborhood property owner, said that this area is zoned residential
and is for residential housing, not businesses. Mr. Messick was concerned about the integrity of his
home and the real estate loss of having Mr. Messick's business here. He also was concerned about
5
dumping on the property.
Mr. Donald Merritt came back to the podium and said that before the Opequon
Treatment Plant was built, he did dump on the ground. Mr. Merritt said that before the treatment
plant was built, everyone in the sewer businesses did the same thing. He said that he takes everything
to the treatment plant now.
Some members of the Commission were concerned about the pending court case on
Mr. Merritt's business and they felt the court needed to rule on the matter before the Planning
Commission could make a decision on an accessory use to his business. They did not want to put Mr.
Merritt out of business; yet, they felt he should operate legally and not to the detriment of his
neighbors.
Chairman DeHaven didn't think there was any way the County Code would allow the
business use that is on the property with the existing zoning, however, if that was not the case, the
court would need to make that decision. Chairman DeHaven felt that considering the size, scope, and
activity of this business, it would only be allowed in a B3, Ml, or M2 Zoning District. He
commented that as smaller businesses grow, such as this one, they reach a point where they are no
longer suited for a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Ellington said that he recognized that Mr. Merritt's business has been at this
location for a long time, however, he noted that there seems to have been some misinterpretation of
the law and perhaps some allegations of intervention. He pointed out that the applicant may have
brought these problems upon himself by being, at the least, inconsiderate to his neighbors and
unconcerned about the impact his operation has had on them. Mr. Ellington said that he has no desire
to deprive Mr. Merritt of his livelihood and would like to see him find a suitable location in Frederick
County to legally operate, however, he felt that this was the wrong business at the wrong place at the
wrong time and he moved to recommend denial of the conditional use permit.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Stone and was passed by the following majority
vote:
YES (TO DENY): Stone, Light, Copenhaver, DeHaven, Morris, Ellington
NO: Marker, Wilson, Romine
(Mr. Ours and Mr. Thomas were absent.)
M
A Request for a Waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance Requirements for Robert W. and
Sandra M. Cleaver by Scot W. Marsh, L.S.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller said that the request is to consolidate two adjoining lots into one lot. Mr.
IvUer said that the request would cause the resulting lot to be in excess of the four to one width to
depth ratio permitted by the ordinance. He said that the subdivision ordinance allows variations or
exceptions to its provisions in cases of unusual situations or where strict adherence would result in
substantial injustice or hardship.
Mr. Scot Marsh of Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. came forward as the
representative for this request.
There were no citizens comments.
The Planning Commission felt that permitting this consolidation would not cause any
problem for adjoining properties and they also felt this was an unusual situation since the existing lot
had no road frontage and could be considered landlocked.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval the request for waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance Requirements for Robert
W. And Sandra M. Cleaver by Scot W. Marsh of Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
Informal Discussion Retarding a Rezonint Proposal for Property Located on the East Side of
Apple Pie Ridee and North of Route 37 by H. K. Benham, M.
No Action
Mr. Tierney said that this request was submitted prior to discussions held by the
Planning Commission at their retreat on February 3, 1996 concerning a change in policy to not have
informal discussions on rezonings. W. Benham was agreeable to this, therefore, no discussion was
held.
7
Discussion Re2arding the Capital Improvements Plan for Frederick County.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Lawrence presented the Proposed 1996-97 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for
Frederick County as recommended by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC)
on December 11, 1995. Mr. Lawrence explained that capital improvement programming and
budgeting involves the development of long-term plans for capital expenditures of local government.
He said that these include expenditures for buildings, land, major equipment, and other commodities
which are of significant value and have a useful life of several years. Mr. Lawrence said that the
CPPC feels that maintenance projects may be inappropriate for inclusion in the County's CIP and in
response to the numerous maintenance projects submitted, the CPPC encourages the Board of
Supervisors to make a policy statement that only capital projects be included in the CIP. He said that
the CPPC feels that maintenance projects should be funded and planned by individual departments.
Mr. Lawrence stated that the draft CIP contains 33 projects with a total cost of
$39,982,221 over the next five years. Mr. Lawrence said that 13 projects are new CIP projects, most
of which are for airport facilities. He said that out of this amount, $21,080,283 would come from the
County' General Fund over a five year period, not including debt service. He said that as presently
proposed, projects scheduled in the first year (FY 1996-1997) would have a total County cost of
$2,455,687, excluding estimated debt service for all projects.
Chairman DeHaven said that he would rather have all the figures include a debt service
figure because he felt it was not a realistic picture without it.
W. Light commented that the County's contribution in 1997-98 is $10,169,470 which
is four to five times greater than the average amount of any year, which can only take the County into
severe debt service trouble. He said that this cost is the result of building the new Stonewall
Elementary School, which he was opposed to. Mr. Light said that the school board originally stated
they did not need to build a new school because renovations to existing schools would accommodate
all the students.
Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the proposed 1996-1997 Capital Improvements Plan for Frederick County
as presented by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee.
8
Virginia Certified Planning Commissioners Program
Mr. Watkins presented information to the Commissioners regarding the upcoming
Virginia Certified Planning Commissioners Program on March 4-5. Mr. Watkins requested that any
interested Planning Commissioners contact the Planning staff.
Introduction of New Planning Commissioner from Gainesboro District, Mr. Jimmie K.
Ellington
Chairman DeHaven welcomed the new Gainesboro District representative to the
Commission, Mr. Jimmie K. Ellington.
Adjournment
at 8:34 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, Chairman DeHaven adjourned the meeting
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
0
L�
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
February 21, 1996.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.,
Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District;
Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C.
Ours, Opequon District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L.
Thomas, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager,
Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal
Counsel.
ABSENT: Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro District; and S.
Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District.
Staff Present: Evan A Wyatt, Planner II; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta,
Minutes Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
2
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed vested rights at their last meeting and
the staff will present those at tonight's meeting.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) - 2/12/96
Mr. Tierney reported that the CPPC reviewed changes to the Round Hill Plan in
response to comments made at the Planning Commission's retreat. Mr. Tierney said those have been
mailed to Board members and they will let us know if the changes are adequate.
Transportation Committee - 2/6/96 Mtg.
Mr. Thomas reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the Primary Road
Improvement Plan, which will be presented to the Commission at tonight's meeting.
Sanitation Authority - 2/15/96
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Sanitation Authority is having problems with the
contractor on the Parkins Mill addition regarding finishing the job done by the agreed upon
completion date. Mrs. Copenhaver said the contractor is estimating completion on April 14, which
is about six months late.
Mrs. Copenhaver also reported that the lagoon at Echo Village needs to be abandoned
by October of 1996. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the Sanitation Authority has approved the City
supplying them with public sewer and water.
In addition, she reported that the Sanitation Authority awarded a contract for a water
main on the northern part of the Route 50Nictory Lane Water Loop Project.
3
Winchester City Planning Commission
Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the City Planning Commission's last two meetings have
been devoted to developing an ordinance change to decrease the density of residential housing in the
central business district downtown.
Revised Master Development Plan Application #002-96 of Preston Place Apartments, Phase
II, to change the housing type from townhouses to 44 garden apartment units within four
buildings on 14.59 acres. The property is located on the north side of Airport Road (Rt. 645),
approximately 300' east of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) and is identified with P.I.N. 64 -A -45C
in the Shawnee District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Arthur Woods, with Bengtson, DeBell & EIkin, Ltd., the firm representing the
developer, Castle Development Corporation, said that the apartment units proposed are very similar
to the apartments built in Phase I and no substantial changes are planned. Mr. Woods said that his
client has agreed to include a disclosure clause in the lease agreements about the proximity of the
airport and the noise factor, so that potential renters will be aware of the situation. He said that
concerns have been raised about the parking lot and security lighting on the site and he pointed out
that no free-standing lights are proposed. Mr. Woods explained that the recreational facilities have
been changed from the approved MDP; they are proposing a swimming pool facility in lieu of a
multi-purpose basketball court. He said that buffers and landscaping have been provided.
Mr. Wyatt said that the Board of Supervisors has consistently granted approval of
previously revised MDPs to change the housing type as long as it was consistent with adjoining
property uses. Mr. Wyatt said that the revision does not change the density of the project and the
development of this phase will complete the build out of the Preston Place project. He added that
the primary concern of the staff involves the delineation of the required residential separation buffer
areas. He said that the applicant needs to better define the location for this buffer area and provide
information that describes how this buffer will be developed.
Chairman DeHaven called for anyone wishing to speak regarding this application and
the following persons came forward:
Mr. Paul Davis, adjoining property owner, requested that a solid fence be placed
around the perimeter of the property. He wanted to prevent intruders from trespassing and littering
on his private road that runs from the apartments down to Route 522.
Mrs. Hope Reagan, adjoining property owner, asked the Commission to consider the
following: 1) the existing lighting infringes on her property and requested that `site light engineering'
be used, 2) the existing fencing is staggered and non -connecting and requested connected six foot
fencing to eliminate pedestrian traffic down the private lane; 3) regarding the existing garden
easement associated with her property, she is discussing with l::r. Mcl`:amara the possibility of
moving the tree buffer to the other side of the fence to protect the garden easement; and 4) regarding
use of the new swimming pool facility by the residents across Airport Road, requested that use of the
pool by people on the south side of Airport Road be denied because it would increase the amount of
pedestrian traffic into the neighborhood.
Mrs. Katie Wisecarver came forward and stated that her husband, Jimmie Wisecarver,
is the property owner of record at 202 Bufflick Road. Mrs. Wisecarver had numerous concerns about
the Preston Place development. She said that the original owner had promised them a "Stonebrook-
type" quality community; however, the existing HUD housing is for a low-income, high-density
transient population. Mrs. Wisecarver said that in 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved a 6'-8'
high child -proof, animal -resistant continuous physical barrier; however, other than screening, a fence
has yet to be erected. She had concerns about some of the activities that take place at Preston Place
and described a domestic incident her husband had witnessed involving a firearm. She also had
concerns about increased capital facilities costs generated from the community, especially for fire and
rescue, police protection, and schools; the effects on surrounding residential property values; the
inadequacy of existing roads to handle increased traffic; stray animals roaming the neighborhood; and
residents on the south side of Airport Road crossing over to the north side to use the proposed pool
facilities.
Mr. Woods came back to the podium and stated that they will install a fence if it is
required by the County Code. He said that even if it is not a requirement, the developer wishes to
be a good neighbor and would consider connecting the disjointed sections of fencing in Phase I and
placing a solid fence around the remainder of the property. Mr. Woods said that they would
investigate the site lighting and would also work with Mrs. Reagan on relocating the buffer for the
garden easement.
Mr. Wyatt noted for the Commission's information that the pool facilities on the south
side of Airport Road are operational and will remain open for use. He said that the pool on the north
side is being built for those residents on the north side of Airport Road to mitigate children crossing
the highway.
Members of the Commission felt there was a need for this type of housing in Frederick
County and it was consistent with previous development phases. They felt that adequate area existed
to create appropriate buffers and screening to protect adjoining properties and that fencing
requirements would also greatly assist in assuring that the two different properties could be
accommodated and work together. Members of the Commission were in favor of requiring the solid
fence and having the staff work with the applicant on the site lighting and garden easement.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Romine,
5
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Master Development Plan #002-96 of Preston Place Apartments, Phase II,
with assurances that all staff comments, review agency comments, and Planning Commission
comments are adequately addressed.
Preliminary Master Development Plan #003-96 of Whitehall Business Park for the
establishment of a business and industrial park containing 52.04 acres. This property is
located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I-81 and Rest Church Road (Rt. 669)
and is identified with P.LN.s 33-A-3 through 10 and 33-9-1 through 8 in the Stonewall District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. T. Merchant McDonald, with the engineering firm of Harris, Smariga &
Associates, along with Mr. Leif Feller, architect, were representing the applicant, Flying J. Inc. Mr.
McDonald said that the front portion of the development, Phase I, is for the Flying J Truck Plaza and
no plans have yet been established for the rear portion, Phase II. He next explained the proposed
layout for the site.
Commission members wanted to know if the 60' access road to the west of the
property would be constructed as part of Phase I in order to accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr.
Feller said that the road, at the onset, will not have a sufficient surface to accommodate emergency
vehicle use. Mr. Feller said that in the interim, there is a portion of the property where automobile
parking abuts truck parking and they could provide grass -trete there which is sufficient to hold
vehicles if the other two accesses were obstructed. He said that Flying J does not own the 60' right-
of-way on the west and he understood that it will not be developed until a later date.
Commission members also had questions regarding the wastewater treatment facility,
the storm water retention ponds, and containment of fuel oil spills from the fueling area.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came
forward to speak:
Mr. Doug Cochran, property owner approximately 1'/2 miles west of the proposed
development, was concerned about water usage by the Flying J operation and the possibility of
depleting adjoining residential wells of their water supply, particularly during dry summers. Mr.
Cochran cited the 200 seat restaurant, showers, bathroom facilities, holding ponds and tanks. He
expressed concern that no hydrologic studies had been conducted to determine if the available
aquifers could support a use of this magnitude.
Mr. Manuel DeHaven, adjoining property owner, came forward to speak in favor of
the master development plan. Mr. DeHaven felt that the entire strip of property was suited only for
commercial use and would be a good economic benefit to the county.
William H. Bushman, VDOT's resident engineer, stated that if the truck stop is
successful, there could be considerable loss of level of service on Rest Church Road and the I-81
bridge crossing at Exit 323. Mr. Bushman said that a contract is in place with an engineering firm
to begin planning for the widening of 1-81 and all the attendant interchanges.
Members of the Commission felt that all VDOT comments needed to be addressed.
They were primarily concerned with the decreased level of service to the I-81 Exit 323 ramp/bridge;
and they felt that the northbound interstate traffic leaving the site would create a bottleneck on the
bridge, causing traffic to back up onto the ramps. Members of the Commission felt the applicant
should provide an all-weather surface on the 60' access road, and also to any proposed pond, for fire
and rescue service during Phase I development. It was also stated that dedication of the right-of-way
for the 60' access road for future dedication to VDOT for access to the properties within Phase H
needed to be accomplished. The Commission directed the staff to ensure that these items were
addressed on the MDP prior to final administrative approval.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of MDP 9003-96 of Whitehall Business Park provided that all staff
recommendations, review agency comments, and Planning Commission items discussed were
addressed. The Commission also provided the Zoning Administrator with the authority to allow a
small disturbance of the Duncan Run floodplain for the purpose of providing the 60' access road as
required by Section 165-31B(1) of the Zoning Ordinance.
1996 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt said that each year, the Board of Supervisors adopt an official plan to
prioritize primary road improvements within Frederick County and this plan is presented during the
annual pre -allocation hearing for the Staunton District, which will be held this year on April 4, 1996
in Augusta County. Mr. Wyatt said that the Transportation Committee considered and approved this
plan at their regular meeting in February. He said that two other items of importance were discussed
and those items were two areas recommended by VDOT for improvement --one is at the intersection
of North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) and Bloomery Pike (Rt. 127) where difficulties occur with truck
traffic negotiating the curve in that area. VDOT has allocated money to reduce the curve and are
simply asking for an endorsement from the Board of Supervisors. The second area is an ongoing
7
project that VDOT would like continued endorsement of and those are the improvements taking place
at the Rt. 11N/Rt. 37 area: 1) the crossover which will align Amoco Lane with the new development
on the opposite side of the road; 2) in conjunction with that there are several small industrial uses
whose connections will be severed from Rt. 37 and added to Amoco Lane to provide better access;
and 3) sever the turn -around and cross-over in front of Crown, Cork, and Seal.
Regarding the Primary Road Plan itself, Mr. Wyatt said that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board has approved an eastern bypass loop (Rt. 37) which will begin at the end of
Macedonia Church Road and will continue to the north (Alternative Q. He said that the route north
of Route 7 could vary somewhat from what the Board approved and he continued, explaining the
status of the project to date. Mr. Wyatt also brought the Commission's attention to the Route 277
Corridor. He said that the Edinburg residency is going to propose that Route 277 become a potential
candidate for an un -allocated project in the hope that it could be improved in conjunction with the
design and construction of Route 37. He said that work is ongoing with the I-81 improvements, with
the City of Winchester on the Route 11 corridor, as it enters the County, and with the LFPDC on
sites for commuter park and ride lots.
Mr. Sager said that VDOT's resident engineer, Mr. Bushman, alluded to the fact that
it could be as much as six years before Rt. 277 was improved. Mr. Sager said that the Rt. 277
improvements were needed so badly now that he didn't see how the county could wait six years.
There were no citizen comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of the 1996 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick
County as presented by the staff and Transportation Committee and does hereby endorse the Rt.
522/Rt. 127 and Amoco Lane projects.
Informal Discussion on a Vested Rights Policy Statement for Frederick County
No Action
Mr. Wyatt said that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
has been asked to consider development issues and opportunities where vested rights may be claimed.
Mr. Wyatt explained that a vested right allows a landowner to proceed with a development proposal
which is not permitted by existing regulations. He said that when a governing body allows a
developer to proceed with a project in which vested rights are a factor, the governing body has
permitted a design concept that is legally non -conforming. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS's proposal
8
is strictly a policy statement and not a new article for the zoning ordinance. He said that it is designed
to be a tool for staff use.
W. Morris said that as a member of the DRRS, he was in favor of the proposed policy
and the DRRS felt this would result in a win-win situation for all parties; however, he felt two points
needed to be raised. He said that one point was that he knows of no other community in the State
of Virginia that has defined vested rights, nor did he know of any ordinances in the State of Virginia
that addressed this issue. Mr. Morris commented that if this is such a good idea, why haven't other
communities addressed this? Secondly, Mr. Morris asked about the differences between an ordinance
and a policy, from a legal perspective.
Mr. Wyatt explained that a policy statement is the way the county does business and
an ordinance is an actual enforceable portion of a county code. W. Wyatt said that the staff could
set a track record, once this is enacted, to determine how the staff has consistently acted in these
situations. He said that the proposed policy will aid in decision-making.
Mr. Thomas asked about time limits for MDPs. Mr. Wyatt said that a death clause
on MDPs would need to be part of the master plan article of the zoning ordinance. He said that the
State Code already provides for time limits on site development plans and platting
Planning Commissioners felt this was a good policy statement and was needed in
Frederick County. The Planning Commission endorsed the proposal by the DRRS and instructed the
staff to proceed with legal advertisement for a public hearing.
Other
Mr. Light wanted to relay his feelings to the Commission about two similar incidences
that came before the Planning Commission in the last six months that were a little uncomfortable and
may possibly have been helped. He said that both occasions involved local businessmen who had
been doing business in Frederick County for the past 15-20 years, Mr. James Wilson and W. Donald
Merritt. Mr. Light felt that the County's local businessmen need help getting through application
processes in a more positive manner than what has currently been done. He said that when a big
company comes in for a request, they have numerous people working on their side to help guide them
through the process; however, when a private individual comes in and is not so familiar with the
process, it sometimes results in an uneasy situation. Mr. Light said that local businessmen may not
know the ropes and the staff is trying to do their job and there tends to be some tension there. Mr.
Light suggested that when a local businessman, who has been in our county for a number of years,
is involved in an application process and there is a staff recommendation of denial, it should be a red
flag to Commission members. He said that the individual on the Commission who is representing that
district may be able to neutralize the situation or establish some type of dialogue and should become
9
involved to see if complications can be worked out and compromises reached. He felt that the
individual may need a little more representation and maybe need some help going through a process
that staff and Commission members were used to, but the applicant may nnt. Mr. Tight felt that local
people should be helped in the best way possible.
Mr. Thomas said that during the Planning Commission's retreat, the subject of staff
recommendations was discussed. Mr. Thomas recalled that it was suggested that instead of using
the terms "approval" or "denial," it might be better to use the phrase, "meets all the criteria" or
"doesn't meet the criteria in areas A, B, C, etc." He said this may eliminate giving the applicant or
someone else the wrong impression or putting the applicant in a defensive posture at the onset.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, Chairman DeHaven adjourned the meeting
at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
(printed March 7, 1996)
REZONINGS:
Frederick Mall Land Trust
(Pine Ridge Est.) (REZ)
Gainesboro 26.14 acres from RA to RP for 29 s.f.
residential lots
Location:
East side of Apple Pie Ridge (739) & north side of
Glentawber Drive
Submitted:
02/16/96
PC Review:
03/06/96 - Recommended Denial
BOS Review:
04/10/96
Woodside Est. (REZ)
Opequon
FWest
36.4589 Acres from RA to RP for
Is.f. residential lots
Location:
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 atapplicant's req.
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Dr. Raymond Fish (MDP)
Stonewall Animal Hospital & Mobile Office
Sales on 20.93 acres B2 & B3
Location:
East side of I-81 and south side of Rt. 672
Submitted:
11/02/95
PC Review:
01/03/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
01/24/96 - Approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
LAwaiting completion of review agency requirements
Preston Place Apts. Phase II
MDP
Shawnee
Garden Apartment Units (rental)
on 14.59 acres RP
Location:
iio. Side of ry
ort Rd. Et. 645)
Submitted:
01/29/96
BOS Review:
PC Review:
02/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
03/13/96
Whitehall Business Pk
(Flying MDP
Stonewall Business Pk on 52.04 Ac. (Ml &
B3
Location:
So. West quadrant of I-81 & Rt. 669 intersection
Submitted:
01/31/96
PC Review:
02/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
02/28/96 -Approved
Pending Admin. Ag pLoyal:
Awaitin com letion of review agency requirements.
Hill Valley (MDP)
Shawnee 54 SF Det. Cluster; 26.123 Ac.
RP
Location:
N.W. Corner of Valley Mill & Greenwood Rds.
Submitted:
11/15/95
PC Review:
03/06/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
04/10/96
James R. Wilkins, III
1`vIDP
Shawnee 76 Apartments & 86 T.H. (RP)
I
Locaiion-
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 Approved ed
PendingAdmin. Approval:
waitin com letion of review a en requirements
SUBDIVISIONS:
Premier Place SUB
Shawnee 4 B2 Lots; 5 Acres Total
Location:
No. & West of the 522/645 intersection
Submitted:
02/26/96
PC Review:
03/20/96
BOS Review:_I
04/10/96
Fredericktowne Est. Sects.
12 & 13 SUB
Opequon 30 sf detached RP lots; 11.3496
total acres
I
Location:
NE of Sects. 5-8; SE of Sect. 11
Submitted:
02/26/96
PC Review:
03/20/96
BOS Review:
Rev. by BOS not required; has approved MDP
3
Valley Mill Estates SUB
Stonewall 21 SF Trad. Lots RP
Location•
No. Side of Valley Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
10/23/95
PC Review:
11/15/95 - Approved
BOS Review:
Review not required --Has an approved MDP
Pending Admin. A royal:
Awaitin bondin , signed tats, &deed of dedication
Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB)
Back Creek 2 Ml Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285
acres
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
Submitted:
09/08/95
PC Review:
10/04/95 Approved
BOS Review:
Review not required --Has an approved MDP
Pending Admin. Approval
Awaiting signed plats.
RMT Partnership (SUB)
Back Creek
1 Lot - 29.6 Acres 2
Location:
Valley Pike Rt. 11 So.
Submitted:
1 05/17/95
PC Review:
06/07/95 Approved
BOS Review:
Review not required—has an approved MDP
Pending Admin. A royal:
[Awaitingsubmission 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 atapplicant's request.
BOS Review:
Review not re wired --has an approved MDP
Abrams Point, Phase I
SUB
Shawnee
r230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots
P
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 Approved
BOS Review:
06/13/90 Approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed
at
Harry Stim son SUB
O e uon
Two B2 Lots
Location:
Town Run Lane
Submitted:
09/23/94
PC Review:
10/19/94 Approved
BOS Review:
10/26/94 Lkj2proyed
Pending Admin. Approval:_ j
Awaiting signed plat.
SITE PLANS:
McElroy Metal, Inc. (SP)
Stonewall Bldg. Addit. for Metal Fabricat.
on 0.28 ac. of a 4.99 ac. site Ml
Location:
325 McGhee Road
Submitted:
02/13/96
Approved:
Pending
Dominion Knolls SP
Stonewall
I Townhouses on 20.278 ac.
Location:
Intersection of Baker Lane and Gordon Street
Submitted:
02/21/96
Approved:
tPendinE
H. N. Funkhouser (SP)
Shawnee Fast Food/Gas on .10 ac. Of a
0.709 ac. Site B2
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 112
Location:
434 Bufflick Road
Submitted:
02/14/96
Approved:
Pending
AT&T P.O.P. Bldg. (SP)
Stonewall Bldg. Addition on 0.10 ac. Of a
0.19 acre site RP
Location:
2032 Martinsburg Pike JS LI)
Submitted:
02/13/96
Approved:
Pending
Stowe -Woodward VBP
Project SP
Opequon 2,800 s.f. addition on 0.064 ac. Of
a 12 ac. Site M1
Location:
Rt. 11; Middletown
Submitted:
02/13/96
Approved
Pending
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
02/28/96
Hardee's Mobile Oil Con-
venience Center SP
Back Creek Conven. Cntr/Rest. on a 1.0727
ac. site RA CUP #011-95
Location:
Southeast corner of Rt. 50 West and Ward Avenue
Submitted:
12/20/95
Approved:
-Pending
D.K. Erectors &
Maintenance, Inc. (SP)
Gainesboro
Indust Serv/Steel Fabrication on
a 10 acre site M2
Location:
4530 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
12/28/95
Approved:
Pending
Doerwaldt Dental Office
SP
Opequon
Medical Office Addition on 0.44
acres of a 0.44 acre parcel 112
Location:
103 Highlander Rd., Stephens Cit
Submitted:
12/18/95
Approved:
Pending
Aerocenter Business Park,
Lot 4 SP
Shawnee
Warehouse on 4.8264 Acres (M1)
Location:
No of intersection of Arbor Ct. & Victory Rd.
Submitted:
12/04/95
11 Approved:
02/23/96
Professional Mobile Home
Brokers, Inc. SP
Stonewall
Mobile/Modular Home Sales on
2.7780 Acres 113
Location:
So. Side Rt. 7 East; southwest corner of Eckard Circle
Submitted:
12/05/95
Approved:
03/07/96
Regency Lakes, Sect. E (SP)
Stonewall 95 units on 28.0 acres MH1
Location:
North of Regency Lakes Drive
Submitted:
10/27/95
Approved:
Pending
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
103/07/96
Approved:
Bein held atapplicant's request.
Wheatlands Wastewater
Facility SP
Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres
RS
Location:
So. West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522
Submitted:
09/12/89
Note:
Bein held atapplicant's request.
Flex Tech (SP)
Stonewall
M1 Use on 11 Ac. Ml
Location:
East side of Ft. Collier Rd,
Submitted:
10/25/90
Note:
Bein held at a licant'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:
Pendin
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Howard A. Pohn (CUP)
Gainesboro Cottage Occupation - Blacksmith
Sha RA
Location:
709 Cattail Road
Submitted:
02/16/96
PC Review:
03/06/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review: ---]04/10/96
BOS Review:
Donald R. Merritt
Gainesboro
Re-establish Nonconforming Use
- Porta -potties for distribution
RA
Location:
558 Ma le Road
Submitted:
12/15/95
PC Review:
02/07/96 - Recommended Denial
BOS Review:
02/28/96 -Ap2licant withdrew a lication
VARIANCES:
Philip & Janice Yount (Var)
Gainesboro 4.75' var. for existing pole barn
Location:
1506 Hunting Ridge Road
Submitted:
02/21/96
BZA Review:
03/19/96
10
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II
RE: Vested Rights Policy Statement
DATE: March 4,1996
Staff presented a preliminary draft of the above referenced policy statement to the Planning
Commission during the February 21, 1996 meeting. The purpose of the informal presentation was to
examine the intent of this document and to determine all concerns of the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission felt that the Vested Rights Policy Statement was an excellent planning tool for
Frederick County and would benefit the development and design community in their efforts to obtain
approvals for the various development applications required by the Subdivision Ordinance and the
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission did not recommend modifications to the preliminary draft
and directed staff to advertise the Vested Rights Policy Statement for public hearing.
The proposed Vested Rights Policy Statement for Frederick County. Virginia, and a resolution are
provided for review. Staff asks that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors for final resolution.
107 North Dent Street + Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
VESTED RIGHTS POLICY STATEMENT
RESOLUTION
At a regular meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission, held on the 20th day of
March, 1996, in the Board Room of the Frederick County Court House on Loudoun Street in
Winchester, Virginia, it was duly moved and seconded that the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, residential, commercial and industrial development within Frederick County,
Virginia. is continuing at a significant rate; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission continues to develop policies to
address the management of growth in the community; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission believes that the establishment of a
Vested Rights Policy Statement will provide a valuable planning tool for County Officials and
property developers within Frederick County; and,
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission believes that the establishment of
Vested Rights Policy Statement will initiate a technique for consistent.decision making
regarding development and design issues.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission supports
the adoption of a Vested Rights Policy Statement for Frederick County, Virginia.
A COPY ATTEST
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Frederick County Planning Commission
VESTED RIGHTS POLICY STATEMENT
FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, VA
The information set forth in this document is intended to define the requirements of the Code of
Frederick County that maintain a vested right when provided on a legally approved development plan,
or a legally approved and recorded plat. It is envisioned that these requirements be vested
perpetually unless future legislative actions at the State or Federal levels mandate otherwise.
1) Master Development Plans:
a) Overall land use plans shall be vested when depicted on an approved master development plan.
b) Proposed residential densities, the type of residential dwelling, the number of residential
dwellings within various development phases, and commercial or industrial floor to area ratios
(FAR) shall be vested if the appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly
depicted on an approved master development plan.
c) Proposed widths for required buffers shall be vested if the appropriate terminology and
numeric information is clearly depicted on an approved master development plan. However,
requirements for screening shall be required as mandated by the current ordinance.
d) Percentages or acreage of required common open space and recreational areas shall be vested
if the appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly depicted on an approved
master development plan.
e) The number of recreational areas designated on an approved master development plan shall be
vested. However, required recreational amenities and installation specifications shall be
mandated by current ordinance requirements.
2) Subdivision Design Plans:
a) The use of each parcel and the number of lots in each use shall be vested when depicted on an
approved subdivision plan.
b) The location and acreage of each parcel of land dedicated for common open space or for public
use shall be vested if the appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly depicted
on the approved subdivision design plan.
C) The location and width of all road right-of-ways provided on an approved subdivision plan
shall be vested provided that the road classification and numeric information is clearly
depicted.
3) Subdivision Plats:
a) The location of setback lines shall be vested if the appropriate terminology and numeric
information is clearly depicted on a subdivision plat that is legally approved and recorded.
b) The location and design of proposed buffers and screening shall be vested if the appropriate
terminology and numeric information is clearly depicted on a subdivision plat that is legally
approved and recorded.
C) The location and acreage of each parcel of land dedicated for common open space or for public
use shall be vested if it is consistent with the approved subdivision plan, and if the
appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly depicted on a subdivision plat that
is legally approved and recorded.
d) The location and width of all road right-of-ways shall be vested if the information is
consistent with the approved subdivision plan, and if the appropriate road classification and
numeric information is clearly depicted on a subdivision plat that is legally approved and
recorded.
e) The allowable density which results from future subdivisions of a parent tract shall be vested
if the appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly depicted on a subdivision
plat that is legally approved and recorded.
4) Site Development Plans:
a) All requirements provided on an approved site development plan shall be valid for five years
from the official approval date of the plan. The requirements provided on an approved site
development plan shall only be vested if building permits have been issued prior to the date
of site plan expiration.
b) Site plans shall be allowed to be approved for phased development. In the event that
outstanding phases are not developed when the expiration date of a site development plan is
realized, all requirements associated with the individual phases shall only be vested if
building permits have been issued for the individual phases by Frederick County.
C) Site development plans that have been submitted for review but have not received official
approval from Frederick County shall not be vested from new design requirements or from new
performance standards.
PC REVIEW: 3/20/96
Subdivision Application #001-96
Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 12 & 13
LOCATION: This property is located east of Stephens City; northeast of Fredericktowne Estates -
Section 5-8; southeast of Fredericktowne Estates - Section 11.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: A portion of the parcel identified with PIN 75-A-72
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RP (Residential Performance); Land Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential
Performance); Land Use: Residential and Vacant.
SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of an 11.3496 -acre tract into 30 lots.
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
Department of Transportation: See attached letter dated 2-12-96 from R.B. Childress.
Sanitation Authority: First review - correct and resubmit - three items.
Inspections: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and
Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993.
Grading site plan required showing lowest floor elevation required on Lot #231, 232, 236,
237, 242, 244, 245, 246, 254 and 255 at the time of permit application.
Fire Marshal: Approved by Fire Marshal's office; access for emergency vehicles must be
maintained at all times.
Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space requirements.
County Engineer: See attached letter from H.E. Strawsnyder, Jr. dated 3-1-96.
Fredericktowne Estates
Subdivision #001-96
Page 2
Planning and Zoning: This proposed subdivision is in compliance with the approved
master plan. Staff concurs with the comments of the Building Official and the County
Engineer requiring individual lot site plans showing grading and lowest floor elevations on
certain lots. Most of the other review agency comments initially submitted by the review
agencies have been corrected. Comments on page 2 of 8 of the plats will need to be
corrected to reflect the additional lots on which individual site plans are required. There
having been problems in the past with the open space easement restriction, request the plats
reflect the fact that no building is allowed in the open space easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This request as presented meets the requirements of the
subdivision and zoning ordinances and, therefore, approval is recommended. The approval should
contain the condition that all review agency comments must be complied with prior to final
administrative approval.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
DAVID R. GEHR PO. BOX 278
COMMISSIONER EDINBURG. 22824-0278
February 12, 1996
Mr. P. Duane Brown, C.L.S.
C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Duane:
WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P. E.
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TEL(540)984-5600
FAX (540)984-5607
Ref: Fredericktowne Estates
Sections XII & XIII
Frederick County
As requested, we have reviewed the above referenced site plan dated October 23, 1995. Our
comments may be found on the enclosed plans marked in red and as follows:
1. To meet current minimum pavement design standards, the typical section of Warrior Road will
need to be upgraded to provide a minimum 2" of Type SM -2A asphalt concrete.
2. Site distance at the proposed intersections will need to be provided.
3. To remain consistent with previously approved sections of this development, the proposed
cross culverts will need to be reinforced concrete pipe.
4. Culvert No. 3 will need to be shifted as noted.
5. A standard DI -12b drop inlet (L=4') will need to be provided at Culverts No. 1 & 2 on the
southwest side of Appomattox Drive or swales will need to be constructed over the pipe to
carry the side ditch flows.
6. Additional drainage easements will need to be provided as shown.
7. If grade allows, the sanitary sewer main between Manhole Nos. 85 & 86 should be shifted to
the southwest side of Appomattox Drive. This would allow for the entire watermain to
remain on the opposite side of the street.
Please revise and resubmit four copies for final approval. Should any changes be deemed
necessary, please design them to meet or exceed the above recommendations.
If you have any questions concerning the above comments, please give me a call. ;(
Sincerely, 0
Robert B. Childress = �� L `4 ��' ✓/
Permits/Subd. Spec. Supervisor
RBC/rf
Enclosure
xc: Mr. T„ L. Jackson, Mr. S. A. Melnikoff, Mr. R. W. Watkins, Mr. John Whitacre
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Public Works Depart, t
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director
540/665-5643
March 1, 1996 Fax 540/678-0682
Mr. P. Duane Brown C. L.S.
Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Fredericktowne Estates Subdivision
Sections 12 and 13
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Duane:
Your revised subdivision plans have adequately addressed- our February 12, 1996 review
comments. The addition of the drainage easements between lots 242, 245 and 246 has dictated
the need for these lots to be added to the list of lots requiring site plans.
A formal resubmission of revised plans will not be required. However, we would
appreciate a revised plan reflecting the addition of the above lots to the detailed site plan
requirement.
HFS:rls
cc: Planning and Zoning
file
Sincerely,
�i 17),
E�) i
!Y
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
i
Location Map for PIN: 75—A-72
Fredericktowne Estates — Sec. 12 & 13
APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST
SUBDIVISION
FREDERICK C Ouri"1Y, VIRGINIA
f �.
Date: Feb. 22, 1996 Application #: Fee Paid
Applicant/Agent: Gilbert.W. Clifford & Associates In
c.
Address: 200 North Cameron stregt
Winchester. Vircxin'a 2 601
Phone: (_540) 667-2139 Fax: 540-665-0493
Owners name:•. of Virainia 12evelonment
P.O.
-Winchester,.04
Phone: (540) 667-212
Please list names of all owners, principals, and/or majority
stockholders:
Contact person: P.Duane Brown
Phone: (540) 667-2139
Name of Subdivision: _ redericktowne Esr_ar_.es, tions 12 &1
Number of Lots: 30 Total Acreage: 11.3496 Acres
Property Location: —East of Stenhens City; NE of Fredericktowne
Estates - Sec -8 SE of F adericktn Me Estates Sec_ -11
(Give State Rt.#, name, distance and direction from intersection)
Magisterial District: Opeauon
Property Identification Number (PIN): Part of 75-A-7
Property zoning and present use: RP zoning and vacant use
Adjoining property zoning and use: RP and RA zoning and Vacant
Has a master Development Plan been submitted for this project?
Yes XX No
If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of
Supervisors?
Yes XX No
What was the MDP title? Fredericktowne Estates____
Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP?
Yes No XX
If yes, specify what changes. _ N/A
Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot): .10.000 square feet_
Number and types of housing units in this development:
Comment sheets and plans delivered on October 31, 1995 to:
VDOT
FCSA
Fire Marshal
County Engineer
Inspections
Parks and Recreation
Lord Fairfax Soil & Water
Schools
FEES: Base Fee $1,000.00
10 Lots @ $90.00 $900.00
20 Lots @ $45.00 5900.00
Total $2,800.00
FINAL PLAT
IFIFe(fen7kh®T`Me
Opequon Magisterial District .j� Frederick County, Virginia
' lStepheh 'City '� 'r/t I `^/�/ Radio — To RCJECT
1 IBM 1!' (.: • yrr r• 'r� Facility,
. • • `_;• AREA
740
WVV IT
J••o; ; c• •r 1 ;9r� ij :1•
4e�° i' i t,\• '? ?I , 1 j , ' .130••
17' tA
+'• L ' • Vicinity Mapcz�e
1+, • :. INTE H/Ft( •�': Scala 1'2000' T loon
APPROVED BY
Frederick County Sanitation Authority Date
Planning Commission Date
Subdivision Administrator Date
Va. Dept. of Transportation Date
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
The above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Top of Virginia Development
Corporation, as appears in the accompanying plats, is with the free consent and in
accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors, and trustees, if any.
Date
NOTARY PUBLIC
1, a Notary Public in and for the State of Virginia, at large, do certify
that whose names are signed to the
foregoing Owner's Certificate, have acknowledged the some before me in my state.
Given under my hand this day of _ 1996.
My commission expires
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
l hereby certify that the land contained in this subdivision is a portion of the land conveyed
to Top of Virginia Development Corporation by deed dated January 21, 1992 as recorded in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 772 at
page 1423.
T OF P. Duane Brown, L.S.
L
The propert represented herein is shown on Frederick County
P. DUANE Tax Map 75((A as a portion of Parcel 72.
,n BROWN
U7�.CL� DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1996 COVER SHEET FILE#: 5076: "PL12-1.DWG"
[.sar...L
NO. 1285 gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET
<,gA(O SUR\4S ( 150—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 8
(540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139
Curve Table
CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA
1 575.00' 26.83' 13.42' 26.83' N '40" w 02'40*25'
2 715.00' 233.76' 117.93' 232.72' N 4344'50" W 18'43'54
3 35.00' 54.98' 35.00' 49.50' S 08'06'47" E 90'00'00"
4 740.00' 47.64' 23.83' 47.63' S 51'16'08" E 03'41'19"
5 1 740.00' 91.07' 45.59' 91.01' S 4553'55" E 07'03'05"
6 740.00' 76.77' 38.42' 76.73' S 39'24'04" E 05'56'37'
7 740.00' 26.45' 13.23' 26.45' S 35'24' 19" E 02'02'53"
8 35.00' 54.98' 35.00' 49.50' W
9 690.00' 130.10' 65.25' 129.91' N 47-42-41- W 10'48'13"
10 690.00' 95.48' 47.82' 95.40' N '4 W OT '41"
11 35.00' 54.98' 35.00' 49.50' N 1 7' 7" 0' "
12 25.00' 21.03' 11.18' 20.41' N 7 '4 '4 48*11'23*
13 50.00' 60.14' 34.31' 56.58' N 69' '06"68'54'4Er
14 50.00' 42.44' 22.60' 41.18' N 1(7,34'36" 4 ' 1
15 50.00' 43.20' 23.05' 41.87' N 3 " W 4 7"
16 50.00' 42.53' 22.65' 41.26' N 8736'26" W 4643'57"
17 50.00' 52.88' 29.22' 50.45' 5 3-743'40" W 1"
18 25.00' 21.03' 11.18' 20.41' W 4611'23
19 35.00' 54.98' 35.00' 49.50' N 7 ' W 0"
The Frederick County Inspections Department will require Grading Site Plans showing the lowest floor
elevation required for Lots 231, 232. 236, 237 and 244 at the time of permit application.
The Frederick County Public Works Department will require Detailed Site Plans for the following lots: 230,
231, 232 and 244.
These Detailed Site Plans shall include the exact location of the house, finished exterior grades, finished
floor elevations and basement floor elevations, entrance culvert design, location of foundation drains and all
easements.
Additionally, any Basement Levels constructed on lots 230 through 235 shall be constructed above the
minimum elevations indicated on the construction drawings, which are on file at the Frederick County Public
Works Department.
Area Summary
Area in Lots 6.0391 Acres
Area in RIW 1.3767 Acres
TOTAL AREA SUBDIVIDED 7.4158 Acres
Number of Lots 19
Average Lot Size 13,845 Sq. Ft.
Open Space Easement Provided (This Section) 0.6933 Acres
Total Open Space Easement Required to Date 15.1624 Acres
Total Open Space Easement Provided to Date 16.7599 Acres
EXISTING ZONING. • RP EXIS71NG USE. VACANT
• Denotes iron rod to be set on property line All lots are single family detached - traditional
35' from right-of-way line.
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement FRONT = 35'
along all rights-of-way and a 10' Utility & Drainage SIDE = 10'
Easement along all property lines. v REAR = 25'
e
see lleimDATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1996 CURVE TABLE FILE#: 5076:"PL12-1.DWG"
gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET
150-C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF
frederldcsburg, Virginia 22401 NAnchester, Virginia 22601 8
(540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139
E:]
30.00' 30.00' -
N
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
EX. ZONING: RP — EX. USE: VACANT
S 53'06'47' E 145.00'
I
7
o l o I 229 t o
1 1 6 11,600 5F o
DO
I I
APPOMATTOX
DRIVE
N53'06'47"W
65.00'
50' R/W
W
W
V)
N
30.00'130. 00'
EXISTING N
WARRIOR DRIVE
60' R/W
L
TH OF
P. DUANE'
O n BROWN
NO. 1285
SUR\Je ,-C
A — 25
SEE SHEET 2 OF 8 FOR CURVE TABLE
145.00'
3'06'47" W 300.13'
EXISTING FREDERICKTOWNE ESTATES—SECTION 5
EX. ZONING: RP — EX. USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOT 118
All lots are single family detached — traditional.
All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way
and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines.
Seethe I1 z
DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1996 SCALE : 1" = 50' FILE#: 5076: "PL12-3.DWG"
gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET
150—C Olda Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street 3
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 898-2115 0 25 50 100 (540) 667-2139 OF
8
IJJ
"
Y z
0
w O
0
1
CV Q
LLJ moo-
�I
228
1
0_ Z U
z,
O
�O
0
1
11,600 5F
��
I p
O
rn
O O �
z N Q
O m x O
Li a'
1
"
I
n`
VJ
1
.♦
n
_
z
Z W
V'
W
1
227
1
�,0
LO M
o
o
I
II,600 5:
O,
100
N
I
Z
•
Denotes iron rod to be set
on property line 35' from
1
right—of—way line.
10
O
226
1
MINIMUM
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
100
1
11,600 5F
1
O
6
FRONT = 35'
SIDE = 10'
RER-
30.00'130. 00'
EXISTING N
WARRIOR DRIVE
60' R/W
L
TH OF
P. DUANE'
O n BROWN
NO. 1285
SUR\Je ,-C
A — 25
SEE SHEET 2 OF 8 FOR CURVE TABLE
145.00'
3'06'47" W 300.13'
EXISTING FREDERICKTOWNE ESTATES—SECTION 5
EX. ZONING: RP — EX. USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOT 118
All lots are single family detached — traditional.
All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way
and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines.
Seethe I1 z
DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1996 SCALE : 1" = 50' FILE#: 5076: "PL12-3.DWG"
gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET
150—C Olda Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street 3
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 898-2115 0 25 50 100 (540) 667-2139 OF
8
237
53 W
SEE SHEET 6 OF 8 • Denotes iron rad to be set
on property line 35' from
right—of—way line.
2-6 —7
g 8 0
0
rzve
N53'06'47"W
65.00'
h
�J
NI
r_ N 4 3 \ 0
a
16 PI)
`\4
r 20' Drainage Esm-t �0 Q v
LU w 1 Drainage C� w
us Y r� ! .V.✓ i+ o 0 Esm't. r` n
d I
16,349 � 23� i I { o z
VV
/ 19,767 5F�► Lq 16.897 5FIto
C14
t
�4
•` S=SF) M LO Imo,
6 +- r
... .. ... �� (5rSg�7 ASF) Z (12,221 F) �� I un
SF) b
N �-.
1 .Ope (4.676 SF) .. .
N o SPAO ;... . ........ .. 0 1
3620' all 0 6933EMENr o .. o z
8.. 4 �.. ... ACRES ..... . CD
O �
Ex. 20' 261%38 114 g3,
SAN. SEWER IX. F eI N 44 95.13' 30.00'
ESM'T. LOr 1Z? C3r kw`�' qT 32 W N 53'06'47" W
_ 300.13'
LOT
S - SECTION 5 i Z
7 lZ1 — EX. USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOT 120 LOT 119
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS w
FRONT - 35'
SIDE - 10'
REAR - 25'
SEE SHEET 2 OF 8 FOR CURVE TABLE.
All lots are single family detached - traditional.
�TH 0p y All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights-of-way
and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along ail property lines.
P. DUANE 1.1' Ll ely. ei nocho W Ll e d.. L'dao1yalyeo g -l- [�Ll`>caLleim 1.�J
o BROWN
DATE. FEBRt;:,R 20 1"961' SCALE 1" _ ;0' FILEg 5076: "1=L12— «
NO. 1285 gilbert w. Clifford dt associates, inc.
.en Efllill`:,�.ED��. G .� YnPM I r rT
LAND PLANNERS SURVEYORS
aF;E�
.—C C;de Greenwlr�. Drlw 200 North Cum on street 4
-(0� Fredericksburg. Virginia 22401 Winchester. Virginia 22601 ! �r
�., v c -R ir, �-••+ (540) 898-2115 0 25 50 100 (544)) 667-2139
SEE SHEETI8 OF 8 SEE SHEET 6 OF 8 \
—�
o w
i
19 , 1 1 238
u,
v3 48.79' 170.04'
N3422'53"W 218.83'
o7naliox Drive
1 76.00' --T- 82.37'
• Denotes iron rod to be set
on property line 35' from
right—of—way line.
6-O' Rz#r
49.24' i
237
U.1 -- I
Q1 F
z t" —� j
W �'IF, 35 I�° �► � I ° N 00
o "' I� 15,713 5F(,co
J
Z W I : I" 1-4,80 5F N
W p z W I I I I0
LLJ
w a_ J (8,740 SF) I r•l I (=- I N =
1n Of t` ...... in
0 0 (5,915
SF)...w X 10 4) +E1 � W�;^..........iS 4 Su -
0 0 o 9 SF -(10,787 SF) Nito�� .. z .................. �.I OPEN SPAC(4,076 SF): -:w 06 �. ^ EASEMENTo........�.^ .. --.................. o4.6933 ACREo.................... o
Z.... ,n ....... to ...............
........................ .. ............
76.01 ' 82.42' .........82.42: ...... I...
..:...........:._._
N 35'22'58" W�_ N 36'20'18" W 261.38' _
LOT 140 EXISTING FREDERICKTOWNE ESTATES— SECTION 6 EXISTING
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTSI EX.ZONING: RP I EX. 20' FREDERICKTOWNE
FRONT = 35' EX. USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SAN. SEWER ESTATES
SIDE = 10' LOT 141 LOT 142 ESM'T. SECTION 5
REAR 25' EX. ZONING: RP
SEE SHEET 2 OF 8 FOR CURVE TABLE. EX USE: SINGLE
TH OF
P. DUANE
BROWN
",004�.�.:.t.�
NO. 1285
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
All lots are single family detached — traditional. LOT 122
All lots Gf are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way and a 10Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines.
Firedenochowme
a DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1996 SCALE 1" = 50' FILE#: 5076: "PL12-5.DWG
�SURVEr1C
gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET
150—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street 5Frederidcaburg, Virginia 22401 1Mnche3ter. Virginia 22601
(540) 898-2115 0 25 5o 100 (540) 667-2139 OF
8
MINIMUM SEEONTK—R35UIREMENTS
.1 SIDE = 10'
�� •�10 OD G� 1 REAR = 25'
�0% O� SEE SHEET 2 OF 8 FOR CURVE TABLE.
Q� / , s • Denotes iron rod to be set
P� �° SFF on property line '35' from
,`rp ^ J, \�� SyF right—of—way line.
OA-
/ 9,
c)
FST
fop
\ � � S S3 VgCq�T ANT
0.
o��,. � �a F�a�,
601, 7 20' s\ \ 22)O .
/6 �
o° oCIO
�3 gam?!�M
W
am' o°
�h�
z ^`� N
All lots are single family detached — traditional.
'TH OF All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way
r�
and
a 10' Utilityand
Drainage Easement
c�along
(all property lines.
P. DUANE LL' 11 ���ll Il�L�l4®�� LLdn�lL�� �lylS.l�Il®uu Iib
O BROWN
DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1996 SCALE: 1" = 50' FILE#: 5076: "PL12-6.DWG"
NO. 1285 gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET
150—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street 6
�,q"VO ��0 25 50 009- Fredericksburg. Virginia 22401
Winchester. 540 22601 3OF
SURv
(540) 898-2115 ( ) 667 8
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
EX. ZONING: RP - EX. USE: VACANT
S 54'49' 15" E 308.00'
Z 155.00' 60.00'
N
Ln
WI 241
2-42 mi IQ700 5F <<1 /
240 r
Co
16 ,0 18,OS7 5� I
0 I o
co 14 I
L
in 1 \ S 55'06' 18" E _ 142.50'
W
®
N
1 13,657 5F I in
tJ' N � 0 0
1.42 34'3 I�
V� o� o� 238 S, -E s ,E�. 2.99' V)
/ t 6 OF 8
237
19 �
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT '
z
a
U
Q
w LJ
CL D
J X
�j W
LLI
01
Lo 0-
� U
�z
Z
0
IV
X
W
S S
� FRONT = 35' 53'06'47' E
SIDE = 10' 227.01'
�Mq 7-�-0 1 1 REAR = 25'
X oR�v . SEE SHEET 2 OF 8 FOR CURVE TABLE.
48 )9 ,j
N.34A ~ so, Denotes iron rod to be set l/
27822787 S3„ ?0 R/I�, on property line 35' from
83, (Q/ 4' right—of—way line.
All lots are single family detached — traditional.
�)ROWN
All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights-of-way
anda 10'Utility and DDrainage Easement along all propertyy llines.P. J1' IPC�lU1C�I�IlC�Jd�ll®�II�C� 1L'�C���`'h]JC�c 'aimB�DATE:FEBRUARY 20, 1996SCALE 1" = 50' FILE#: 5076:"PL12-7.DWGNOgilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET
150—c Olde Greenwich Drive 7
2CFD North Cameron Street�A, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 898-2115 0 25 50 100 (540) 667-2139 OF
8
W
z
Q Q
V) U
w >
W
j W
V)
0M�
Y X
OZ W
o� Z
UJ a
U- in
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
EX. ZONING: RP — EX. USE: VACANT
S 54749'15" E 308.00'
93.00'
to
a;
�o—
L-
a �0 �4 2-41 /
N, P�
,70, 11,025 5F
14
4,(j 9067
CIV to
2 y o
s3 0
o, 41j
03
L.
O
W
z
V)
W
W
1n
= co
= Y ►�� W
� W
1 to
4-07, 19 ,,� (�/ N
N3 �
4 22.53„� Z J qF O
4MINIMUM SEK—R35UIREMENTS
FRONT
L4pOM 1 SIDE = 10'
LT) f O SOX O REAR = 25'
pp v N 48, )9, O4iVf SEE SHEET 2 OF 8 FOR CURVE TABLE.
W N3SO' Denotes iron rod to be set
4 22' 7 %Q R�IV on property line 35' from
M - 28.83 3"�, Q4' right—of—way line.
All lots are single family detached — traditional.
T, 1i OFD All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way
�� f and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all property
lines.sr�'fj �j
? P. DUANE Ll' u-aeno , ktowme lEoft ez �' t ecdolm X16
O BROWN "'
- 9 DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1996 SCALE 1” = 50' FILE#: 5076: "PL12-8.DWG"
NO. 1285 gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET
15D—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street 8
t0`- Fredericksburg. Virginia 22401 Winchester. Virginia 22501 OF
SUR`JE (540) 898-2115 0 25 50 100 (540) 667-2139 8
FINAL PLAT
FredeFfthowme
Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Vr inia
r >� .: , AA air►
1. Ji — 79�' 7Ai�- l 'jW.:#% // �•:':i -.� aado� / a Q"RVJLI_T
AREA
740
•�ci, � I��� t• �J1� �•-7 .ice •• �:;�.• ':,',•• �,�
Q; _ •.tet 'j • �. B150
1 it J`L l ,1�U•- ice: f j111.7%� �``� •~• �° I 9•
�� , - ` •`• . Vicinity Map /
INTE 1 ••° Scar. 1-2000'
APPROVED BY
Frederick County Sanitation Authority Date
Planning Commission Date
Subdivision Administrator Date
Va. Dept. of Transportation Date
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
The above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Top of Virginia Development
Corporation, as appears in the accompanying plats, is with the free consent and in
accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors, and trustees, if any.
Date
NOTARY PUBLIC
a Notary Public in and for the State of Virginia, at large, do certify
that whose names are signed to the
foregoing Owner's Certificate, have acknowledged the some before me in my state.
Given under my hand this _ day of — 1996.
My commission expires
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
/ hereby certify that the land contained in this subdivision is a portion of the land conveyed
to Top of Virginia Development Corporation by deed dated January 21, 1992 as recorded in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 772 at
page 1423.
'T.H OFD P. Duane Brown, L.S.
1
'QC The propert represented herein is shown on Frederick County
P. DUANE Tax Map 75((Aas a portion of Parcel 72.
BROWN
a DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 COVER SHEET FILE#: 5076: "PL13-1.DWG"
NO. 1285 gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET
qNQ SURvE(O�L 150—C 01de Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street1
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 OF
(540) 898-2115 (540) 667-2139 5
The Frederick County Inspections Department will require Grading Site Plans showing the lowest floor
elevation required for Lots 245, 254 and 255 at the time of permit application.
The Frederick County Public Works Department will require Detailed Site Plans for the following lots: 254
and 255.
These Detailed Site Plans shall include the exact location of the house, finished exterior grades, finished
floor elevations and basement floor elevations, entrance culvert design, location of foundation drains and all
easements.
Additionally, any Basement Levels constructed on lots 250 through 255 shall be constructed above the
minimum elevations indicated on the construction drawings, which are on file at the Frederick County Public
Works Department.
Area Summary
Area in Lots 3.4318 Acres
Area in R/W 0.5020 Acres
TOTAL AREA SUBDIVIDED 3.9338 Acres
Number of Lots 11
Average Lot Size 13, 590 Sq. Ft.
Open Space Easement Provided (This Section) 0.6188 Acres
Total Open Space Easement Required to Date 15.7525 Acres
Total Open Space Easement Provided to Dote 17.3787 Acres
EXISTING ZONING. RP EXISTING USE. VACANT
• Denotes iron rod to be set on property line
35' from right-of-way line.
All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement
along all rights-of-way and a 10' Utility & Drainage
Easement along all property lines.
� ..►.LTH OF L
P. DUANE -4
O n BROWN
NO. 1285
rt
�rz�n SUR'Je C
All lots are single family detached - traditional
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FRONT = 35'
SIDE = 10'
REAR = 25'
Tu -ed eirno howme IEz�mteo
secdom 0
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 CURVE TABLE FILE#: 5076: "PL13-1.DWG"
gilbert w. clifford & associates, Inc.
ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET
2
150-C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF
Frederldnburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 5
(540) 898-2115 (540) 867-2139
Curve
Ta bl e
CURVE
RADIUS
LENGTH
TANGENT
CHORD
BEARING
DELTA
1
220.00'
100.98'
51.40'
100.10'
N
00' 13'22"
W
26'1 8'0Y'
2
575.00'
26.83'
13.42'
26.83'
S
33'02'40"
E
02'40'25'
3
600.00'
156.07'
78.48'
155.63'
N
26'55'46"
W
14'54'13"
4
245.00'
26.11'
13.06'
26.09' 1
N
16'25'31"
W
06'06'18"
5
575.00'
97.69'
48.96'
97.57'
N
26'50'26'
W
09'44'03"
6
575.00'
25.05'
12.53'
25.04'
N
2 '43'3 "
W
02'29'45"
7
220.00'
124.43'
63.93'
122.77'
N
0 3-16'3 1"
W
4'17"8
8
270.00'
28.77'
14.40'
28.76'
5
16 1
E
-M4'17-
06'06'18"
9
625.00'
71.68'
35.88'
71.64'
5
2Z45'48"
--E06'
4'1 "
10
625.00'
71.68'
35.88'
71.64'
S
29'20'05"
E
06-34'17'
11
625.00'
19.21'
9.61 '
19.21'
S
33 0'0
01'45'40"
The Frederick County Inspections Department will require Grading Site Plans showing the lowest floor
elevation required for Lots 245, 254 and 255 at the time of permit application.
The Frederick County Public Works Department will require Detailed Site Plans for the following lots: 254
and 255.
These Detailed Site Plans shall include the exact location of the house, finished exterior grades, finished
floor elevations and basement floor elevations, entrance culvert design, location of foundation drains and all
easements.
Additionally, any Basement Levels constructed on lots 250 through 255 shall be constructed above the
minimum elevations indicated on the construction drawings, which are on file at the Frederick County Public
Works Department.
Area Summary
Area in Lots 3.4318 Acres
Area in R/W 0.5020 Acres
TOTAL AREA SUBDIVIDED 3.9338 Acres
Number of Lots 11
Average Lot Size 13, 590 Sq. Ft.
Open Space Easement Provided (This Section) 0.6188 Acres
Total Open Space Easement Required to Date 15.7525 Acres
Total Open Space Easement Provided to Dote 17.3787 Acres
EXISTING ZONING. RP EXISTING USE. VACANT
• Denotes iron rod to be set on property line
35' from right-of-way line.
All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement
along all rights-of-way and a 10' Utility & Drainage
Easement along all property lines.
� ..►.LTH OF L
P. DUANE -4
O n BROWN
NO. 1285
rt
�rz�n SUR'Je C
All lots are single family detached - traditional
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FRONT = 35'
SIDE = 10'
REAR = 25'
Tu -ed eirno howme IEz�mteo
secdom 0
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 CURVE TABLE FILE#: 5076: "PL13-1.DWG"
gilbert w. clifford & associates, Inc.
ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS - SURVEYORS SHEET
2
150-C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street OF
Frederldnburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 5
(540) 898-2115 (540) 867-2139
SEE SHEET 4 OF 5 .W MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
25.00' 25.0 % `b -
O06• 0' 2�-9 l `0 W FRONT = '
8 O E � `� SIDE = 10'
4 REAR – 25'
0 N 70'31'20" E 103.54' SEE SHEET 2 OF 5 FOR CURVE TABLE.
o 0) 245 s
� I N I I 10.392��
M ��
Io N 70'31'20" E `r'
cv — _ 159.56'
W
N N I •� I � � FfFf�o
N 'I 2 7 GO;
O I 14,603 5F a'
0 b I 04 _ N � 70-31 '20E ' 214. � �
0
N — 88' ��
W
= N
W �' Z L I 246
�o
I 17,365 5�
L
N 68'01'36" E /261 78' �s
-�
117.28' S 68-01'36" W 144.50'
10' DRAINAGE
N w ESM'T.
24U-) N
�0 IO,uS 5F ;r- r s
5 I �C",
E
N 0
CNI
110 • 17
\N pSEo SF C r EX.
20, Sa P ON\l� Denotes iron rod to be set
2 on property line 35' from
right–of–way line.
All lots are single family detached – traditional.
op All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement alone all rights–of–way
and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement
along all property lines.
P. DUANE
O BROWN
U.pc�.-cam DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 SCALE : 1" = 50' FILE#: 5076: "PL13-3.DWG"
NO. 1285 gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS – LAND PLANNERS – SURVEYORS SHEET
150—C Olde Gr~wich Drive 200 North Comecon Street 3
•4N0
`(09- Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601
SURVE (540) 898-2115 0 25 5o 100 (540) 657-2139 OF
5
(F1TURE DEVELOPMENT
S 04'40'58 EEX. ZONING: RP
�Q 65.48' EX. USE: VACANT 1
/ SEE SHEET 3 OF 5 qA
17 A-
\
� Q o co 2,W
0 10,000 5F
o _
} p9 92'
r
7 Q N �9 28
Ex a� o ® att0x
SO'AT70XMDRI VE Appo''� ,,
R / W z 43.32 0.
� w
n a'• O t11 / 1N o
� 1
Z CA Oa. LLI
Ln
I
x
x to v m �-% \ O. I W
o N N 1a,�te �` \ j\ mL
LJ
O �K
o g69
Ln D �? I N 1 1� -►1 F
?tel rn CP
rn 1 cp ( /SF) ...... . .
w U4SF)
r - (9,2 ( sp PCE.... O
43 5
o .FSS
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS .::::::: 00 6188
FRONT = 35' _� W 353.12
SIDE 10. OD .� .'.... r-... .
REAR = 25. gp.0y.:.-� .. .... 02'0
SEE SHEET 2 OF 5 FOR CURVE TABLE. ` 4 x,49 f N -TA-ms ESEC',
1 N � TOWNE TtA k -pi 1
49
Denotes iron rod to be set EX. FIR L(
R RESIpEN
o9hproperty way line. 5' from ESM TSEWER SECT10N5$ uSE 0G.
GFAMILY
_OT EX.
All lots are single family detached — traditional.
�TH OFD All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement along all rights—of—way
f and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all property lines.
P. AEIl®m1 Ili
WN
a DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 SCALE : 1" = 50' FILE#: 5076: "PL13-4.DWG"
NO. 1285 gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET
150-C Olde Greenwich Drive
<•q �� 200 North Cameron Street ¢
yo v�-( Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601
SUR (540) 898-2115 0 25 50 100 (540) 667-2139 OF
5
1qL'11
W
6) W
L
20' "1
coo
_._ --- � -- .....- X51'.....-.•. � Esm wt
N� 2 0 o N .....'......... -.J 115 00
IL c> ............ 3.49' S
O a, rn (T 19 5T A
N W C7 g• 49 i 07" w 1CKT0`�E E T
55 37' SEO FREOERON 12 VACAN
PROPO SEO EX. USE.
o EX ZONING: RP ti
kTH OF G
l�
P. DUANE
O n BROWN
All lots are single family detached — traditional.
All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement
and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all proper
VA
rn
MINIMUM SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS
FRONT = 35'
SIDE = 10'
REAR = 25'
SEE SHEET 2 OF 5
FOR CURVE TABLE.
along all rights—of—way
V lines.
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 1 SCALE : 1" = 50' FILE#: 5076: "PL13-5.DWG"
NO. 1285 gilbert W. clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET
� 15O—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street 5
•QN (0 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 OF
SURVE (540) 898-2115 0 25 50 100
(540) 667-2139 5
I ....•.......... SEE SHEET 4 OF 5 ���
Denotes iron rod to
on property line 35'
be set .'..'.'.........--J
from N
70*31 '20" E 171.73'
right-of-way line.
^
, T------
Z
21 73Li
_
L
W (�
�'I.�
I
i
1.•T �Z�"
�Fr2 I
'�Q.
�
LAG I r7I
o
' °"° . z w �.
I V) 00 0
14,3875F I 00
IESM'T.
a-w'n �...
20'
N. SEWER
......
O
... S 70' 18'26" W 172.38'
(50.00') :
22.38'
r,
......'.'..'.'... .
_�
Z
Q
:.�'^
W Z
� .... ...�
(
N OW
N..'...'..... N
I 9
Co Cn a_ �
T °'.........:.:.:.:: C:
14.198 SF
< 6 J
in Z
o
N ......'.'...'..'.'. .
O . .............. _ ,
178.37
,;;ems
°'' .'•.•.•.•.••..• S 63'S7�
_
ui
127.99
0 W 0
Z
z ::...(50.38'):.;.
'...........
..
LJ
�- ....'.... w N
W
n "' ^
15,308 5F
............
............
195.31'
o
........................... 57.22 47 W 1
S
143.87
;' 1�,
x..44')
00 proina9
1qL'11
W
6) W
L
20' "1
coo
_._ --- � -- .....- X51'.....-.•. � Esm wt
N� 2 0 o N .....'......... -.J 115 00
IL c> ............ 3.49' S
O a, rn (T 19 5T A
N W C7 g• 49 i 07" w 1CKT0`�E E T
55 37' SEO FREOERON 12 VACAN
PROPO SEO EX. USE.
o EX ZONING: RP ti
kTH OF G
l�
P. DUANE
O n BROWN
All lots are single family detached — traditional.
All lots are subject to a 20' Slope & Drainage Easement
and a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement along all proper
VA
rn
MINIMUM SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS
FRONT = 35'
SIDE = 10'
REAR = 25'
SEE SHEET 2 OF 5
FOR CURVE TABLE.
along all rights—of—way
V lines.
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1996 1 SCALE : 1" = 50' FILE#: 5076: "PL13-5.DWG"
NO. 1285 gilbert W. clifford & associates, inc.
ENGINEERS — LAND PLANNERS — SURVEYORS SHEET
� 15O—C Olde Greenwich Drive 200 North Cameron Street 5
•QN (0 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Winchester, Virginia 22601 OF
SURVE (540) 898-2115 0 25 50 100
(540) 667-2139 5
PC REVIEW: 3/20/96
BOS REVIEW: 4/10/96
SijhriiviciDn App!icati....i -9E
PREMIER PLACE
LOCATION: This property is located on the west side of U.S. Route 522 South, north and west
of the intersection of U.S. Route 522 and VA Route 645,
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64 -A -10A
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: B2 (Business General); Land Use: Commercial and
Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Areas), RP (Residential Performance),
MH 1 (Mobile Home Community), and B2 (Business General); Land Use: Residential, Commercial
and Vacant.
SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of a five -acre tract into four lots.
REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS:
Department of Transportation: See attached letter dated 2-23-96 from VDOT
Sanitation Authority: There are seven water services on this property; show which three
are to be abandoned. Approved - February 22, 1996; 2nd review.
Fire Marshal: Approved by Fire Marshal's office; no additional comments.
County Engineer: 1) Indicate location of stormwater management facilities or indicate
how stormwater management will be addressed. 2) Indicate stormwater easements required
to convey stormwater across site and/or into stormwater management facilities.
Premier Place
Subdivision #002-96
Page 2
Planning and Zoning: There is no approved master plan for this tract and waiver of the
master plan requirement is recommended. The street to serve this property has been
constructed and leaves little flexibility in how the property can be divided. Structures
currently exist on lots 1 & 2 - these being model homes that are proposed to be used for
businesses. The odd shape of this property, combined with buffer requirements dictated by
the adjoining MH 1 and RP zoning districts, greatly restricts developmental capability. The
street will be required to be brought up to state standards and dedicated for eventual insertion
into the state system. The stormwater management function highlighted by the County
Engineer needs to be addressed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends waiver of the master plan requirement as
permitted by Section 165-123 C. of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the subdivision request
would meet all of the known ordinance requirements. Approval should be conditioned upon the
requirement that all review agency comments be complied with prior to final administrative
approval.
_ 1
1-C��'l
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINBURC RESIDENCY
DAVID R GEHR 14031 OLS VAI LEY PIKE
t:ovv==,or.cn P.O. Dox M
EDI:vBhR ±. VA 22R24027A
WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN. P.E.
Tt:LE
FAX (sir.• qR• •a U•
Response to Subdivision Comment Request for Premier Place
February 23, 1996
We hure no overall objections to the subdivision of this property. The existing
entremce, which is being reconstnu-ted in conjunction with our Rollie 522' project, will
be adoqu.-rte to serve the propArty.
It is our understcmrliT19 the owcier desires to have PremiFr Place added to the State's
Secondary System. At preserit our minimum service re'rpirements are not met.
Additionally, the existing roadway and other right-of-wuy improvernents will need to
be brought up to our current design standards. Any re-engineering, construction,
permits and/oz inspection costs will. be the owner's responsibility. The existing 20'
writer easeinent and Potomac Edison easement shown within the Premier Road right -
of -way will need to he quitc..laimed prior to addition.
xc: 1.4r. Steve A. Melnikoff (w/ cony of plat)
1.41'. H. E. Dellinger
fel
-1/40 a�✓ ft'14
SUBDIVISION #002-06 PIN: 64—A-10A
Premier Place
APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST
SUEDIVISION
FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA
Vie- '7"-�
Date: - Application9� Fee Paid Z -L
Applicant/Agent: Gilbert W. Clifford & Asso
Address: 200 Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone: 540-667-2139
Owners name: Glaize & Brothers
Address: P.O. Box 2598
Winchester, Virginia 22604
Phone: 540-662-2092
Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority
stockholders:
Glaize & Bros., A Virginia Partnershi
Contact Person: Steahen Gvurisin
Phone: 540-667-2139
Name of Subdivision: Glaize Homes
Number of Lots 4 Total Acreage 5.000 Acres
Property Location: West de of U. S . Rt . 522 South, north & west of the
intersection of U.S. Rt. 522 & Va. Route 645.
(Give State Rt.#, name, distance and direction from
Magisterial District Shawnee
Property Identification Number (PIN)) 64 - A - 10A
8
�F cry`°or
f�h.Y
Property zoning and present use: B-2, Business General Zoning &
Commercial - Vacant uses
Adjoining property zoning and use: Ra. RP- M91
residential commercial and vacant
Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project?
Yes No X
If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of
Supervisors?
Yes No
What was the MDP title? N/A
Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP?
Yes No
If yes, specify what changes:
Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) _ 15,967 snuare feet
Number and types of housing units in this development:
Number N/A
Types
9
2/14/96
r
is
� W-''b
'56 1 r. 'r • /L Vi�� ` 61 jrL-
;r NoLi .Nrub/f 1 Set t?s . 4�
41
J 0,0f ItPP. �/1_ 1 j )SITE..
VICNIiY MAP y \+y I
f' SCALE: 1'�20W' 7• 'E Icts : C 4
APPROVED BY
Frederick Counly Sanitation Authority Date
Virginia Department of Transportation Date
Planning Commission Date
Board of Supervisors Dote
Subdivision Administrator Dote
OWNERS CONSENT
The above and foregoing subdivision of the land of GLAIZE & BRO., o Virginia
Partnership, as appears in the accompanying plot, is with the free consent and in
accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors, and trustees,
if any.
NOTARY PUBLIC
1. a Notary Public in and for the Stole of Virginia• of large,
do certify that , whose name is signed to
the foregoing Owner's Consent, has acknowledged the some before me in my state.
Given under my hand this day of ig_
My commission expires
SURVEYORS CER77FICA7E
I hereby certify that the land contained in this subdivision is all of the land
designated as Parcel A which was conveyed to GLAIZE & BRO., a Virginia Partnership,
by deed dated 11 January 7988 less and except the land conveyed to the Commonwealth
of Virginio by deed doted 27 duly 1995 and by amended deed doled 6 October 1995,
said deeds recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia in Deed Book 671 at Page 134, Deed Book 843 at Page 719 and Deed Book 847
at Page 1173, respectively.
Lyi'K9�i
Douglas . Legge, L.S.
TAX MAP 64 ((A)) PCL 9B
ZONED: B2 FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
USE- COMMERCIAL
PREMIER PLA CE
"H(j
SHAMEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Plot- FP-96121.dwg
%0 i:CPlll IIAIE NLI. 11AIE: 15 Fehruury 1996 Cover Sheet Sheet 1 of 4
? rj 1197 D
�4} ��� log r Tw1lARSii & ILEGGE
Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
lv SI1R�f J� 139 North Cinneron Street Wlnclunter•Virginia 22601
(_ 40) 661. 0466 ro. (540) 667- 0469
CURVE TABLE
CURVE
RADIUS
I LENGTH
TANGENT
CHORD
B£ARINO
DELTA
cl
4323.041
98.78`
49.391
95.78`
504 39 47 E
01'18 33
C2
43 J5. 04i
95.92'
..,��1
47.0
95.92l
A'T�rl
SOi572i c
v1 to 04
C3
251.35
14 1. 30
72.57
139.44
568'43 49 W
3272 3J
C•1
220 00
267 32'
152.96'
251. 13'
S8726'03 'W
9 37'10"
69'37'10-
C5
226 35
12^7.47'
65, 47
125.79'
N6845 30 £
'
3275'53
C6
45.00'
54.00'
2711
53.69
N585625 £
12'3743
3
C7
245.00'
243.70'
133.00
233.77
S86"15'00'r
565926
ca
276.35'
155.1j'79
67
153.10
568'42'26 W
3209'46'
C9
195.00
234.78'
133.98
?20.55
5870704 W
685901
c/o
25.00
3L 05'
17.58
29.09
N22 a5 45 w
71'09'22 '
O f
5000'
218.62'
81.65
567 30'20 1V
AREA SUMMARY
AREA IN LOTS 4.0815 ACRES
Area Hereby Dedicated to County 0.7645 ACRES
of Frederick for Public Street
Purposes
TOTAL AREA SUBDIVIDED 4.8450 ACRES
PST" PREMIER PLA CE
1
fA
� Plot: FP-96121.dwg
z DOUGLA Z
O CERTIFICATE NUu
. DATE: 15 Febrary 1996 Curve Table Sheet 2 of 4
u 1197
01! MARSH & LEGGE
hi Land Surveyors P.L.C.
<q�D $Up./Ev,[�� 189 North Cameron Sheet Wlnehester. Virginia 22601
(5011 667-0468 roa (540) 667-0469
SEE SHEET 2 OF 4 FOR CURVE TABLEE, U. S. ROUTE 522
SEE SHEET 4 OF 4 FOR EASEMENTS. FRONT ROYAL ROAD
VARIABLE W044 R/W S4975'47 E-36.95•
5425J'16 "W 2J. 91, C2 _
50106'17 £ C1 05400' o
31.53' 64—((A)) -9B
4.83' 50' B.R.L.
10.17 5.0(LOt
15,245 SF.�� i
^/e C5 \ 21 d ��
Lot 4 \ ` �' 64—((A))—BC ,
2.9662 ACRES \ Lot 2 a
17, 366 SF v
rn
v%
'V J6 jJ �B F I C91 I
a O C4
JASBO, INC. & FRED L. GLAIZE, N O 1
DB 736 — P 66 516;11'18"W\ DO'
ZONED: A4HI 22.88'
USE: VACANT ) /
/
h�ah / ao1
/
..qs�
0
PFO?i Ste.
O rr
�'1'l •iii
F DOUGLAS C. CEG67 Z
❑ CERTIFICATE NO. —
'� 1197 n,
/
0
AL
�k
\84—((A))—PD
Lot 3
\15,967 SF/
h /
�C7 ' h00
/
CALVARY CHURCH OF THE ORE
DB 280 P 84
ZONED: RP
USE: CHURCH
LEGEND
B.R.L. Building Restriction Line
NOTE: Iron rods found or set
at property corners.
a 50 too zoo
Graphic Scale in Feet
1 =100"
PREMIER PLA CR
Plat: FP-96121.dwg
DATE: 15 February 1996 Scale: 1"=100' Sheet 3 of 4
MARSH & LEGGE
C F-,Aryi Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
q�0 SUP. /y�� 199 North Cameron Street Winchester. V irpMNa 22801
(540) 667-0468 Fo. (540) 667-0469
U. S. 110111'F. 522
FRONT ROYAL PIKE
£X. POTOMAC EDISON ESM'T VARIABLE WIDIH R/W
DB 843 —P719—
& V1 t
EX. SHENANDOAH1O•
GAS EASEMENT �►�
' DB 802 — P 200
�c
JASBO, INC. & FRED L. GLAZE. N
DB 736—P86
ZONED Mill
USE. VACANT
o CERTIFICATE
" 1197
}�;y0 SUfzJE�d�
iPlot.- FP -96121.
Z DATE: 15 Feb,
A
2%
Lot 1
/
Lot 2
£X.-SHENANDOAH
GAS EASEMENT
DB 802 — P 20�
Lot 3
1.
EX. 20' WATER EASEMENT
DB 719 — P 141
CALVARY CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN
DB 280 - P 84
ZONED: RP
USE: CHURCH
O 50 100 200
Graphic Scole in Feet
C-100,
PREMIER PLA CL'
1996 Scole: 1"-100'
1 Sheet 4 of 4
MARSH
& ]LEGGE
Lend Surveyors, P.L.C.
139 lianh Cameron Street
W—h-ter, Vlrptnte 22601
(540) 667-0468
ro. (540) 667-0469
SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT
Land Use
Planning
Is Key To
Successful
.Development &
Quality of Life
_hFBy Thomas E. Jacobson
Shown right, office development in
Chesterfield County.
The future economic health of
Virginia depends on land use
planning. Contrary to popu-
lar rhetoric, successful economic
development will result from
'istained community planning,
,rong zoning regulations and
quality design standards.
It is common today for aspiring
business and political leaders to
call for reduced government red
tape, and environmental and
zoning standards. While many
communities require user friendly
development review procedures
and intelligent modifications of
environmental and land use laws, a
wholesale dismantling of these
regulations would seriously wound
long term economic health.
DYNAMICS OF
METROPOLITAN GROWTH
To understand the critical rela-
tionship between land use regula-
tions and economic development,
the dynamics of metropolitan
growth must be understood. New
industrial, research and develop-
ment, and office uses often are
attracted to suburban sites with
easy access to freeway inter-
changes and airports. These sites
•ovide superior access to markets
Ad suppliers. The freeway
oriented sites also provide quick
access to employees from wide
ranging residential areas. Retail
and service business prospects
desire a site with good visibility
and accessibility that is centrally
located within their market area.
Desirable economic development
sites, consequently, are limited
and, of even greater concern, often
are threatened by premature devel-
opment.
The first wave of development
into the rural land surrounding
urban areas is usually large lot
homes. The first homes develop in
a ribbon pattern along rural roads.
Those are followed by scattered
subdivisions randomly sited amid
forests and agricultural fields.
These residences also develop on
land, which in a couple of decades,
will be desirable for industrial or
commercial use. In addition, early
businesses along rural highways
may prevent the future business
development because of their loca-
tion or appearance. This premature
development often prevents quality
economic development projects
because of the difficulty of land
assembly, incompatible land use
and design problems, and/or
resident opposition to large scale
development.
For a more detailed understand-
ing of this problem, let's focus on
the development pattern at the
Powhite Parkway (Route 76) and
Midlothian Turnpike (US 60)
interchange in northern Chester-
field County. It has been more than
seven years since Powhite Park-
way, a limited access highway, was
opened to traffic interconnecting
the rapidly developing residential
area in west central Chesterfield
County to downtown Richmond
and the regional highway network.
The planned communities of Bran-
dermill and Woodlake are located
in this rapidly developing area. The
interchange with Midlothian
Turnpike, Chesterfield's primary
commercial corridor, offered
tremendous potential for major
economic development.
While major office and commer-
cial development has occurred, its
The author is the Chesterfield
County Director of Plannin,-_
POWHITE / MIDLOTHIAN
TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE AREA
potential was much greater. Only
one of the four interchange
quadrants has developed near its
capacity. The Arboretum, in the
southwestern quadrant, has more
than 500,000 square feet of
regional office, office warehouse
and retail space. A major hotel and
two additional office buildings are
planned. However, the size of this
project was constrained by the
earlier development of an adjacent
residential subdivision.
Development potential in the
northwestern and southeastern
quadrants is severely limited
because of the existence of
residential subdivisions that were
developed in the 1970s and 1980s
in proximity to the interchange. A
community shopping center and a
building supply store are located in
the southeast quadrant, although
these retail stores could have
located on other sites along
Midlothian Turnpike. The develop-
ment of another residential subdivi-
sion close to the interchange, will
prevent large scale regional uses
from locating at the northwest
quadrant.
The northeast quadrant has
been zoned for a major office park.
At the entrance to this planned
quality project is an unattractive
auto service building, ministorage
facility and large billboard. One
speculative office building of
120,000 square feet was constructed,
repossessed and now is occupied by
the lending institution. According
to several commercial realtors, the
poor quality commercial buildings
adjacent to this planned office park
have prevented it from attracting
tenants. While additional develop-
ment is anticipated at this inter.
change, poor land use planning and
regulation 25 years ago markedly
reduced the economic development
potential at this key location.
AVOID REPEATING
PAST MISTAKES
Learning from past mistakes,
Chesterfield County officials have
planned for future industrial and
business development at critical
locations along Route 288, I-95,
1.295 and our airport. Zoning and
subdivision regulations are being
used to protect these sites.
The success of Virginia's future
economic development efforts will
depend on the effectiveness of land
use planning in suburban localities.
These suburban areas provide the
Wise advice would be to steer residential
growth away front future econontic
development sites.
sites for most of Virginia's future
job growth. Over 95 percent of the
net job growth in the Richmond -
Petersburg Metropolitan :area
between 1985 and 1994 occurred in
suburban jurisdictions. Similarly,
the greater Tidewater Area experi-
enced 93 percent of its net job
growth in the same period within
its suburban jurisdictions.
Motorola representatives recent-
ly announced intentions to begin
construction of a microprocessor
production facility in metropolitan
Richmond. This planned 5.000
employee, $3 billion dollar industrial
campus will be Virginia's Most
significant economic development
project of the 1990s. Critical to the
success of this recruitment was the
availability of a well planned and
strategically located suburban sit
accessible to major utilities and
highways. The beautiful, heavily
forested, 360 acre site fits within
West Creek, a 3,500 acre planned
office and industrial development.
This was zoned by Goochland
County officials in 1988. Similar
sites are needed throughout
V'irginia's suburban areas.
COORDINATED PLANNING
LONG TERM SUCCES
Local government planning and
zoning often is controversial.
Government regulation of land use,
especially in suburban and exurban
areas, often is perceived as restrict-
ing individual freedom — not as a
foundation toward building a
better community. Wide public
discussion of the economic develop-
ment benefits of land use planning
and zoning is crucial to the metro-
politan areas' ability to provide
future job growth.
Suburban communities must
plan and protect major industrial,
office and commercial sites
through local government planninL
and regulation. Coordinated land
use, transportation and utility
planning can identify critical
future sites. Zoning and other
regulatory tools can protect these
sites from premature development.
Design standards can ensure long
term development compatibility.
Effective land use planning will
reduce public opposition to develop-
ment "in my backyard," smooth
government development review
and reduce red tape.
As competition for recruiting
high quality companies and jobs
intensifies, the quality of available
sites becomes more critical. If
economic development efforts are
to yield Iong term success,
sustained land use planning needs
to be strengthened in the
Commonwealth. ED
For more information:
Thomas E. Jacobson
Director of Planning
P.O. Box 860
Chesterfield, VA 23832
( 804) 748-1052