Loading...
PC 09-18-96 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Minutes of August 21, 1996 Meeting ..................................... A 2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................... B 3) Committee Reports ................................................... C 4) Citizen Comments .................................................... D DISCUSSION ITEMS 5) Kernstown Battlefield Resource Management Plan (Mr. Lawrence) ...................................................... E 6) Discussion Regarding Corridor Appearance and Design Standards (Mr. Wyatt).......................................................... F 7) Other File- K:\WP\CMN\e6C0VERS\PC9 IBAGN MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, Virginia on August 21, 1996. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall 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. STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Interim Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - TUNE S 1996 & JULY 3 1996 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of June S, 1996 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of July 3, 1996 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Stephens City Wellhead Protection Ordinance - 8/19/96 Mtg. Mr. Tierney reported about a landowners meeting held at the Lord Fairfax Community College on Monday, August 19, 1996 concerning the Stephens City Wellhead Protection Ordinance issue. Mr. Tierney said that there was considerable public concern and opposition to the ordinance and questions were raised about its purpose. He said that it was also made clear that the County is in opposition to the ordinance and the process by which it originated (no public input). Mr. Tierney said that it appears Stephens City is convinced the ordinance is needed and they intend to proceed. He said that the Planning Department's Planner I, Mike Ruddy, gave a presentation on other water -related matters, the Chesepeake Bay Preservation Act and the Potomac River Basin Nutrient Reduction Strategies, and how they may affect Frederick County. Comprehensive Plans &- Programs Committee (CPPC) - 08/12/96 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPC is sponsoring a joint Planning Commission/ Board of Supervisors worksession on Wednesday, August 28, 1996 to discuss the Route 11 North Plan. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 08/20/96 Mtg. Mr. Morris reported that the HRAB reviewed and informally discussed the Resource Management Plan for the Kernstown Battlefield. A number of HRAB members 3 Design, P.C.), at the School Board offices on Thursday evening, August 15, 1996. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 08/20/96 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the SA will begin conducting their regular meetings on the third Tuesday of each month at 5:30 p.m. at their new administration building. She reported that the SA has the lowest number of lots designed with no construction started since 1990 (131 lots); however, the lots under construction are the highest since 1990. Mrs. Copenhaver added that the Stephens Run Plant is now closed and Parkins Mill is on line. Winchester Planning Commission Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the Winchester City Planning Commission began their five-year review of the Comprehensive Plan. He said they are also continuing with their consideration of neighborhoods to be rezoned HR1, in an attempt to preserve single-family neighborhoods within the City. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #009-96 of Kenneth C. Poole, Jr. for an auto repair business. This property is located at 214 Stony Hill Road and identified with PIN 28 -A -165B in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Miller stated that the proposed use is permitted with an approved conditional use permit. Mr. Miller said that the applicant indicates that this will be a part-time business. He said that the garage where the work will take place is far enough from the public road and screened so that it will be barely visible and is not visible from any adjoining residence. Mr. Miller said that the arrangement of the property in relation n to a wooded area and available parking is such that if more than five vehicles were parked there, they would be visible from the public road. He felt that allowing the proposed use would not appear to present a negative impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Kenneth C. Poole, Jr., the owner, was available to answer questions from the Commission. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission had no particular issues of concern with the proposed use. Upon motion made by Mr. Ellington and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #009-96 of Kenneth C. Poole, Jr. for an auto repair shop with the following conditions: 1) All repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. 2) All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from the view of the surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen at least five feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained. 3) No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be allowed on the property. 4) No inoperative vehicles shall be allowed on the property at any time. 5) All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. Conditional Use Permit #010-96 of Jennifer B. Harris for a Cottage Occupation for a Tool Sharpening Business. This property is located at 6671 Middle Road and is identified with PIN 72-A-76 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Miller stated that the proposed use is permitted as a cottage occupation with an approved conditional use permit. Mr. Miller said that the building in which the proposed activity will take place is adjacent to the applicant's residence. He said that during a site visit on July 18, 1996, he observed a large metal lathe and other materials being stored outside and he noted a zoning violation, in the form of an inoperative vehicle, on the property. Mr. Miller explained that Mr. Harris was present during the visit and was advised that the violation would need to be eliminated prior to starting the business. Mr. Clark G. Harris, Jr. and Mrs. Jennifer B. Harris, the owners, were present to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Harris said that he will go to the customer's location and pick up the tools and bring them back to his home for sharpening. Mrs. Harris said that the inoperable vehicle has been removed from the property and the lathe has been stored inside. There were no citizen comments. No particular areas of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Conditional Use Permit #010-96 of Jennifer B. Harris for a tool sharpening business with the following conditions: I. All work associated with the business shall be conducted inside the existing structure. 2. No outside storage of machinery associated with the use, materials awaiting service, or completed work shall be allowed. 3. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 4. If customers are going to be coming to the property for service, VDOT's commercial entrance requirements must be met. (Mr. Romine arrived at this point of the meeting.) n Rezoning Application #004-96 of Valley Mill Estates to rezone 1.0731 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located north of Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659), 3/4 mile east of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), and is adjacent to Mill Race Estates. The property is identified with PIN 55 -A -176B in the Stonewall District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt stated that the property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Mr. Wyatt said that a rezoning for Valley Mill Estates was approved in 1995 and a master development plan was subsequently approved. Mr. Wyatt explained that when the applicant proceeded to the subdivision stage, they experienced problems designing the lots, due to the road location. With that in mind, they decided to add additional acreage to the lots, shift the road slightly west, and market the lots as larger, wooded lots. Mr. Wyatt said that the proffer statement submitted states that this additional acreage will be added to the rear of Lots 14 through 19. He said the proposed rezoning will not increase the density --the number of lots would remain the same. The staff felt the impact of the rezoning would be minimal, if any, because of its incorporation into the rear of the building lots. A question was raised by the Commission regarding the length to width ratio requirement for RP lots. Zoning Administrator, Wayne Miller, stated that the proposed lots will meet this requirement. Mr. Tierney said that because the road shifted west slightly, the lots on the west side of the road will not be quite as deep as they appear to be on the drawing. Mr. Harold Anderson, partner in the Cameron Group, the property owners, stated that the addition of the acreage greatly enhances the appearance of the subdivision. There were no public comments. The Commission had no particular areas of concern with the rezoning. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application # 004-96 of Valley Mill VA Estates to rezone 1.0731 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to RA (Rural Areas). (Mr. John Light arrived at this point of the meeting.) Rezoning Application #005-96 of Scully, Ltd. to rezone 25,593 (.58 acres) square feet from B 1 (Neighborhood Business) to B2 (Business General). This property is located on the south side of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), east of the I-81/Stephens City interchange, and identified with PIN 85-A-148 in the Opequon District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt said that the property is within the boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Idealized Interchange Development Pattern. He stated that the property currently contains a bank, the ACE Hardware Plaza, and a seasonal ice cream stand. Mr. Wyatt stated that the applicant has proffered out specific B2 uses, including used car sales, car washes, churches, hotels, motels, golf courses, and driving ranges; has proffered to offset the negative impact to the emergency services system through a monetary contribution which is consistent with the County's Impact Model; and finally, the applicant has proffered that any development within the rezoned portion of this property will utilize the existing commercial entrance on Fairfax Pike for ingress and egress. Mr. Thomas G. Scully, Jr., President of Scully Ltd., the owner of the property, was available to answer questions from the Commission. There were no public comments. Planning Commissioners were concerned about adding yet another use in this area, which was already overcrowded with business establishments, and how the proper traffic flow would be achieved to accommodate all the uses. It was pointed out that this area was already heavily congested with traffic due to the 1-81/ Route 277 interchange and the many established BI and B2 uses. Considerable site planning questions were raised. 8 The staff pointed out that the property will have a dual zoning classification, B 1 and B2, and will have a shared parking lot. It was noted that there was no buffer requirement between B 1 and B2 and the property was located in the Interstate Area Overlay District for sign height. Members of the Commission stated that the proposed use was certainly appropriate for this area because neighboring properties had similar rezoning. It was also noted that negotiations were underway that may allow the development of a Taco Bell that would replace the existing Packs Ice -Cream stand, therefore, the amount of traffic may not increase over that experienced during the summer months. The Planning Commission was very much interested in being involved with the site development plan for this project. Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Morris, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #005-96 of Scully, Ltd. to rezone 25,593 (.58 ac.) square feet from B1 (Neighborhood Business) to B2 (Business General) with the provision that the site development plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission. This approval was by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): DeHaven, Wilson, Romine, Morris, Ours, Ellington, Copenhaver, Stone, Marker NO: Thomas ABSTAIN: Light OTHER Discussion Regarding a Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Planning Commission Bylaws to Establish New Standards for Tabling Procedures. Mr. Wyatt presented the proposed tabling procedures, Section 9-3-9 of the Planning Commission's Bylaws, and Section 165-10 from Article II, Amendments, of the Code of Frederick County for discussion. Mr. Wyatt stated that the proposed amendment creates two changes from the current procedures --it sets specific standards L'7 for when the Commission is allowed to table applications and it limits the applicant's ability to table an application to one time only. Mr. Wyatt said that during discussion of this matter at the Commission's July 17 meeting, the primary goal was to limit the applicant's ability to table an agenda item to one time only. He said that the Commission wanted it to be specifically clear to the applicant that if tabling was requested, the Planning Commission was committed to action within a 90 -day period; or, if the applicant needed additional time, the applicant could request a waiver of the 90 -day action. The Planning Commission felt that the proposed revisions would protect the citizenry by preventing an application from being drawn out over numerous meetings, however, it would not change the prerogatives of the Commission. Upon motion made by Mr. Ellington and seconded by Mr. Marker, the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the proposed amendments to the bylaws and scheduled this for final action at their October 2, 1996 meeting. Status of the Route 11 North Study Mr. Tierney stated that the Comprehensive Plans &- Programs Committee (CPPC) sponsored a public meeting on July 16, 1996 at the Ruritan Building to present the concepts contained in, and to receive comment on, the draft land use plan for the Route 11 Study Area. He said that there were over 100 people in attendance and reaction to the proposed plan was mixed. Mr. Tierney said that the staff has drafted text to accompany the land use map and this text was discussed by the CPPC and forwarded to the Commission. Mr. Tierney said that a worksession has been scheduled with the Board of Supervisors for next week, August 28, 1996. Members of the Commission questioned the Sanitation Authority's involvement in this project, since water and sewer are being discussed. Mr. Tierney explained that the CPPC first wanted to address the proper "land uses" in this area, with the knowledge that it is at least feasible to sewer the area, and the issue of who pays for the sewer would be the next question to answer. Members of the Commission suggested that Wellington H. Jones, the Ire. Engineer/Director of the Sanitation Authority, Dr. Ned M. Cleland, Chairman of the Sanitation Authority and member of the Winchester -Frederick Service Authority, and June H. Wilmot, Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Coordinator, be invited to attend the August 28 worksession with the Board. Greenwood Road Subdivision Application #007-96 to subdivide a 2.837 acre tract into five lots for single-family residences. This property is located on the west side of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), approximately 1,400' north of the Senseny Road (Rt. 657) intersection, and identified with PINs 55-A-191 and 55- A-193 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Miller stated that the proposed lots as presented by the plats meet the ordinance dimensional requirements and the proposed shared driveways for Lots 2 &_ 3 and 4 & 5 will keep the number of driveways entering onto Greenwood Road to a minimum. Mr. Miller said that since the proposal falls within the limits of the Greenwood Road Reconstruction Project, the proposed lots could potentially be affected by that road project. Mr. Miller said that the County Engineer has requested additional actions to address stormwater management and has also requested that a site plan be submitted for Lot 1. He said that the staff concurs with these requirements. Mr. James Petry, the developer, was present to represent the application. Members of the Commission had questions on potential impacts to the proposed lots by the Greenwood Road Construction Project. Mr. Petry felt it was unlikely that these lots would be affected. He said that the Greenwood Road Project was taking place on the opposite side of the road, further north. There were no citizen comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Greenwood Road Subdivision Application #007-96 to subdivide a 2.837 tract into five lots for single family residences with the condition that all review agency comments be complied with prior to any construction 11 on these properties. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Interim Planning Director Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed September 5, 1996) Application newly submitted. REZONINGS: Scully Ltd. (Rez #005-96) Opeguon 25,593 sf from B1 to B2 Location: So. Side of 277, E of 1-81/Stephens City Interchange Submitted: 07/23/96 PC Review: 08/21/96 -Recommended Approval BOS Review: 09/11/96 Valley Mill Estates (Rez #004-96) Stonewall 1.0731 acres from RA to RP Location: No. of Valley Mill Rd. (Rt. 659) 3/4 mi. east of Rt. 656 Submitted: 06/24/96 PC Review: 08/21/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 109/11/96 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Chapel Hill (MDP #006-96) Shawnee F Det. Urban Residential on E15.04acres (RP) Location: East side of Rt. 522 So.; 700' south of Lon croft Rd. Submitted: 06/10/96 PC Review: 07/03/96 - recommended approval BOS Review: 08/14/96 - approved Pending Admin. Approval: JLAwaitingCompletion of Review Agency Comments. Mosby Station, Sect. I & H (MDP #005.96) Opequon 85 SF Detached Residential on 36.12 acres (RP) Location: Between old Rt. 612 & relocated Rt. 642 Submitted: 05/02/96 PC Review: 06/05/96 - recommended approval BOS Review: 07/10/96 - approved Admin. Approved: ______,LAw!gting completion of review agency comments Hill Valley (MDP) Stonewall 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: 05/13/96 - Approved ,L_fending Admin. A roval: Awaiting completion of staff & review agency comments SUBDIVISIONS: Greenwood Rd. (SUB #007- 95) Shawnee Subdivision of 2.837 ac. into five lots (RP) Location: W. Side of Greenwood Rd (Rt. 656) approx. 1,400' north of Sensen Rd. (Rt. 657) intersection Submitted: 07/22/96 PC Review: 08/21/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 09/11/96 Fredericktowne Est. Sect. 14 & 15 (SUB #00496) Opequon T33 SF Trad. Lots on 9.9804 res (RP) Location: East of Stephens City; N.E. of Sections 11-13 Submitted: 05/02/96 MDP #007-88 Approved 12/05/88 Admin. Approval:. Section 15 Pending; Section 14 Approved 07/30/96 Valley Mill Estates (SUB) Stonewall r2l SF Trad. Lots (RP) Location: No. Side of Valley Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 10/23/95 MDP #001-95 Approved 04/26/95 Pending Admin. Approval: LAwaiting bonding, signed plats, &deed of dedication Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB) Back Creek 2 Ml Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres) Location: Southeast side of Development Lane Submitted: 09/08/95 MDP #003-87 1 Approved 07/08/87 Pending Admin. Approval LAwaiting signed plats. RT&T Partnership (SUB) Back Creek 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2) Location: Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.) Submitted: 05/17/95 MDP #003-91 A roved 07/10/91 Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication Briarwood Estates (SUB) Stonewall 20 Sl? Det. Trad. Lots (RP) Location: Greenwood Rd. Submitted: 01/03/94 MDP #005-93 Approved 12/8/93 Pending Admin. Approval: I Being held at applicants request. Abrams Point, Phase I (SUB) Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban bots I (RP) Location: South side of Rt. 659 Submitted: 05/02/90 PC Review: 06/06/90 Approved BOS Review: 06/13/90 Approved 11 Pending Admin. A royal: I Awaiting deed of ded., letter of credit, and si ned plat Harry Stimpson (SUB) Ope uon Two B2 Lots Location: Town Run Lane Submitted: 09/23/94 PC Review: 10/ 19/94 Approved BOS Review: 1 10/26/94 Approved Pending Admin. Approval: I Awaiting signed plat. SITE PLANS: Stephenson Emmanual U.M. Church (SP #038-96) Stonewall 1,500 sf addition on 3.3515 ac. tract (RA) Location: 2720 Martinsburg Pike Submitted: 08/21/96 Approved: Pending Frederick Veterinary Hospital (SP #037-96) Opequon Veterinary Hospital on .50 ac. of a 2.05 ac. site (RP) Location: East side of A for Rd t. 642); so. of Westmoreland Dr Submitted: 08/21/96 Approved.- Pending Winchester Regional Airport (SP #036-96) Shawnee T -Hangers & Taxiways on 3 ac. of a 472 ac. site (AP1) Location: Winchester Regional Airport; 491 Airport Road Submitted: 08/20/96 Approved: Pending Kenneth D. Kovach & Theresa Kovach Shawnee 1,040 sf addit. on 0.26 ac. of a 0.8486 ac. tract (Ml) Location: 230 Arbor Court Submitted: 08/14/96 Approved: Pending Hardees Mobile OR Conven. Cntr (SP #050-95) Back Creek Conven. Cntr/Rest. on a 1.0727 ac. site (RA) (CUP #011-95) Location: Southeast corner of Rt. 50 W and Ward Avenue Submitted: 12/20/95 Approved: Pending completion of agency r uirements. (SP #034-96) Kohls Distribution Facility[Airport awnee Warehouse Distrib; 38 disturbed ac. of 53.27 ac. site (Ml) Location: Rd!(Rt. 645 in the Ai rt Business Center Submitted: /02/96 11 A roved: ndin Furlongs Sheet Metal (SP #032-96) (B2) Stonewall 5,040 sf bldg on 0.569 ac, of 0.583 ac. site for refri . repair Location: Southeastern side of Baker Lane Submitted: 07/17/96 Approved: Pending Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube Service (SP #030-96) Opequon Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive-Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2) Location: 152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store) Submitted: 07/03/96 -Approved: Pending Stonewall Mini -Storage (SP #028-96) Gainesboro Mini -storage on .25 ac. of a 2.56 ac. tract (Ml) Location: 120 Lenoir Drive Submitted: 06/20/96 Approved: Pending The Corners Restaurant (SP #027-96) Back Creek Addition to a restaurant on 0.10 1 acres of a 1.245 ac. site (RA) Location: 1429 South Pifer Road Submitted: 06/10/96 Approved: Pending Flying J Travel Plaza (SP #026-96) Stonewall Travel Plaza on 15 acres (B3) Location: S.W. corner of the intersection of 1-81 & Rt. 669 Submitted: 05/23/96 Approved: Pending Cedar Creek Center (SP #025-96) Back Creek Museum on 0.485 ac, of a 3.210 acre parcel (Bl) Location: 8437 Valley Pike (Rt. 11), Middletown Submitted: 05/16/96 Approved: Pending AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP #022-96) Gainesboro Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. 1 area of a 0.916 acre parcel (RA) Location: 3548 North Frederick Pike Submitted: 05/08/96 Approved: Pendin Dr. Raymond Fish (SP #023-96) Stonewall Mini -Golf Facility on 5,000 sq. ft. of a 16 acre arcel (B2) Location: S.E. Corner of 1-81 /Hopewell Rd. Intersection Submitted: 05/09/96 Approved: Pending Valley Mill Apts. (SP #020- 96) 1 Shawnee L76 -unit apartment development 7.684 acres (RP) Location: Corner of Rt. 658 & Rt. 659 Submitted: 04/12/96 Approved: Pending Stonewall Elem. School (SP #019-96) Stonewall School Bldg; developing 8.22 ac. of a 10.0122 ac. parcel (RA) Location: 3165 Martinsburg Pike, Clearbrook Submitted: 04/11/96 Approved: Pending American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 acre site (B2) Location: 1730 Be ille Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Pending Dominion Knolls (SP #010- 96) Stonewall 180 TH on 20.278 ac. (RP) Location: Intersection of Baker Lane and Gordon Street Submitted: 02/21/96 Approved: Pending Pegasus Business Center, Phase I (SP #007-96) Shawnee Office, Misc. Retail, Business on 2.5 ac of a 6.0623 ac site (B2) Location: 434 Bufflick Road Submitted: 02/14/96 Approved: Pending D.K. Erectors & Main- tenance, Inc. (SP #051-95) Gainesboro Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on 1 a 10 acre site (M2) Location: 4530 Northwestern Pike Submitted: 12/28/95 Approved: Pending Wheatlands Wastewater Facility (SP #047-89) Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (R5) Location: So.West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: Being held atapplicant's request. Flex Tech (SP #057-90) Stonewall I MI Use on 11 Ac. (MI) Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Being held atapplicant's request. 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Jake T. Miller (CUP #011- 96) Back Creek Breeding Kennel for Dogs (RA) Location: 140 Duck Run Lane Submitted: 07/29/96 PC Review: 09/04/96 - recommended denial BOS Review: A lication withdrawn b applicant on 09/05/96 Jennifer B. Harris (CUP #010-96) Back Creek Cottage Occupation/Tool Sha enin (RA) Location: 6671 Middle Road, Middletown Submitted: 07/01/96 PC Review: 8/21/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: 109/11/96 Kenneth C. Poole, Jr. (CUP #009-96) Gainesboro Public Garage w/o body repair (RA) Location: 214 Stony Hill Road (Rt. 688) Submitted: 06/27/96 PC Review: 08/21/96 - Recommended Approval BOS Review: lEog/11/96 11 Robert C. Fowler (CUP #007-96) Gainesboro Comm. Outdoor Rec. Facility/ Shooting Range (RA) Location: 840 North Timber Ridge Road Submitted: 05/10/96 PC Review: 06/05/96 - tabled; 09/04/96 - recommended approval BOS Review: 10/09/96 1, VARIANCES: c �4 &atta li& k [Location: 206 Halifax Court, Fredericktowne Submitted: 08/23/96 BZA Review: 09/17/96 Location: 11 Off of Rt. 600, Duck Run, Lot 3, Duck Run Lane Submitted: 11 08/23/96 BZA Review: 11 09/17/96 12 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM 'ro: Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I (_:�u � SUBJECT: Kernstown Battlefield Resource Management Plan DATE: September 9, 1996 OCULUS, formerly known as West Main Design Collaborative (WMDC), has submitted the completed Kernstown Battlefield Resource Management Plan to the Planning Department. Staff previously presented the draft version of the plan to the Commission in July. The:.final version of the pia n• inco.rporates, elements ranging frcm the -site's role in the Civil War to visitor access and_ interpretation. The plan ,proposes ,that visitor access and nterpretation be ..addressed- by -historical elements and:zones. Interpretive zones will be desionated, based on:battles, farming characteristics, and the Pritchard house area. Each zone would interpret separate historical stories and combine together to interpret the overall story behind the Grim Farm during the Civil War era. Visitor access to the site wouid be via an entrance on Middle Road with parking provided off this entrance. An interpretative trail system would be accessed from the parking area. The visitor access and interpretation portion of the plan is represented in three, five-year phases with preliminary, planning -level cost information provided. The resource management portion of the plan addresses issues such as protection of the natural features and the physical structures on the property. The natural features considered include, but are not limited to: the management of water resources, wildlife, and vegetation. Stabilization and protection of the Pritchard House is also mentioned. The overwhelming theme behind the plan is to protect, preserve and promote the cu!turai, historical and natural characteristics of the site for others to enjoy and learn from. The draft plan was presented by OCULUS to the public during a presentation in mid- August. Those in attendance agreed that the plan sets the stage for the preservation and interpretation of the property. Numerous members of the Kernstown Battlefield Association (KBA) were in attendance and also voiced their excitement for the plan as an excellent first step in designing preservation of this historical resource. 107 Ni)rth Kent Street • Winchester. Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Kernstown Battlfield Resouce Management Plan Presentation to the Planning Commision September 9, 1996 A portion of this plan was funded by a grant from the National Parks Services' American Battlefield Protection Program. We are interested in gaining the Commission's approval of this plan; it is important that the County be satisfied with the final product of the NPS' ABPP grant funded project. Staff will present the plan and be available to respond to any questions. A copy of the plan is enclosed for your review. Thank you. ERL\bah FAII`t:RITiT�iia COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner H k RE: Corridor Appearance and Design Discussion DATE: September 5, 1996 The Land Use section of the 1996 Comprehensive Policy Plan for Frederick County recognizes the need to address the appearance of corridors entering the Winchester/Frederick County area. In August of 1993, a joint meeting of county and city officials was held to discuss the benefits of corridor appearance. The majority of this discussion focused on the recommendations of the Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce's Corridor Appearance Task Force Report which was ultimately endorsed by both governing bodies. The report recognizes the connection between attractive entrances to the community and the achievement of economic development goals. The recent approval of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan has created some concern regarding the issue of corridor appearance. Concern has been expressed that corridor appearance issues need to be developed that will assist in the development of the Route 50 West corridor prior to an influx of development applications. The county's Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has been directed to create new corridor design standards to support the recommendations of the Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce's Corridor Appearance Task Force Report and to ensure that the goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan are achieved. The DRRS has recommended that limitations be established for specific site design features as follows: Entrance spacing requirements for arterial and collector road systems. Boulevard entrance design for arterial road systems. Freestanding and building mounted signage. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page -2- PC Memo September 5, 1996 Parking lot locations and setbacks. Landscaping enhancements including maintenance requirements. Building and parking lot lighting systems. Staff will conduct a slide presentation during the Planning Commission meeting that demonstrates these design issues. Staff is interested in input from the Planning Commission that will be utilized to develop new design standards that will enhance corridor appearance. These design standards are envisioned to be developed as an overlay district. This would afford county officials the opportunity to work with the Chamber of Commerce and the business community to determine appropriate areas of implementation. Staff plans to solicit input from the City of Winchester, the Economic Development Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, the business community, and the development and design community throughout this process. Corridor Appearance Task Force JANUARY, Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce 1360 S. Pleasant Valley Road Winchester, Virginia =601 Corridor Appearance Task Force _ _ • • w•►■ 1• Ilk:.' • • =•• �=a =■ 1• V • lel � � ■• • =3 • • • • ORCANIZA77ON ��� - �•� - � - . •lit Cari RLEEK" Patton, Harris. Rust and Assodates June Wilmot Economic Development Commission Pam Throd=orton Apple Travel and Tours Gary Longerbeam Public Works City of Winchester Claxck Anna Potomac Edison Qeg ape' Shenandoah's Pride Mey Zucim=tan Tourism Marketing Director Chamber of Commerce Pat Brasher Delco Development Company Ron Lilly Planning Department Frede_zck County Sally Penfield Sally Crisman Interiors PIs Crandeil Northwestern Workshop Douglas R. Toan Toan & Associate, Matt McHale Colony Realty Sally Wolfe The Shockey Companies Jxm Spangler Mascom Systems Bill Shendow Executive Director Chamber of Commerce Rick Ours Winchester Medimi Center Timothy Youmans Planning Director City of Winchester ACKNOWUEDGIMNTS The Corridor Appearance Task Force gratefully admawledges the support of those Chamber of Commerce volunteers whose names appear above. The Task Force also expresses its apprecia- tion to the following organizations: Media SaTices Department of the Winchester Medical Center, Frederick County Planning Department, City of Winciiester Planxting Department and Publication Sponsor, BROWNL iG-FERRIS, NC. Report of the Corridor Appearance Task Force BACKGROUND In the winter of 1992, the Conservation of Natural Resources Com=ittee of the W=4mter. Frederick County Chamber of Commerce was asked by the Ewnomic Development Comm=on to consider taking on the project of producing a report, the pups of which would be to improve the appearance of roadway corridors leading into the community After some dis =xon, the Corsservation of Natural Resources Committee determined that tate appearance of ann=a pity corridors was a business -Mated issue of importance The committee reasoned that derision o£ businesses, shoppers and tourists to come to Winchester -Frederick County is direr -try ni$uenced by the appearance of its roadway corridors. This being the case, the Conservation of Natural Resources Co== tiaee agreed to take the lead for the Chamber in addressing the issue. In Marcia of 1992, an ad hoc committee, The Corridor Appearance Task ,Force, was forested farthe purpose of developing a recommendation as to how the appearance oftiViitcter-pe rjck County's roadway corridors might be Improved. Those asked to serve on the committee consisted not only of volunteers from the Conservation of Natural Resources Committee, but also represen- tatives from business and government who would bring special areas of e.,cpertise to the comatit tee. The Committee's first meeting was held on Monday, March 26th, The Committee met every month since then and approved the report on January IS, 1993. PURPOSE The purpose of the Corridor Appearance Task Forte is to produce a viable recommendation for the City of Winchester and County of Frederick which, if adopted, would serve to sigmficantly enhance, over the long term, the appearance of roadway corridors Ieading into the community. APPROACH The Corridor appearance Task Force determined that the task of producing a recommenda_ tion as to how to improve the appearance of corridors Ieading into the community could best be accomplished by developing a model of what an attractive roadway corridor should Iook Like, Once a model was developed, it could the_rt be used as a source of comparison in evimining existing corridors. This comparison would serve to focus the attention of local Citizens and officals on those factors that contribute to the unsightly appearance of e.dsting community corridors and what was needed to improve their appearance. e GegERAL RECO AnoNS • r r r r• • I I I •1 / I A • • _ _• u ■ - �. r_ • - • _• s•1 •• - . • . •� - •1 .I r•• •y ■ u• • • � r- • a• r•1 •Ir/ • • •• r _• ti • •• •� _ I- �r•Iw ■1.1 •■• • •■- ■• r• _ • w 1 - • •: • • •I.1 •• • •Iw _ • • L■1.1• • Or Aa '`.� — -.� • �" _ _ ` fit- - �. l 2 Z Specific Recommendations SIGAiAGE TIM PltoMEM Comanercal signage is a leading con 41miting factor to a corridors appearance. Along some stretches of the roadway carridoxs leading into our cvnu ur&7, signage dominates the harizom. The problems associated with signage are azuit. ceted. TIW indadc Sue - Sighs are oftentinum too large, too tall or both. They are trequendy out of propor- tion to the building which houses the business they promote. Excessive sign size can dominate the landscape and obscure the community's character. nutter - In a:any instances there are too many signs, too dose together, along our roadway corridors- The result is not only visual dutter, but conftisfon on the part of the mot:orisL Design - Signs along roadway corridors lack quality of design. They frequently have no relationship to the business they promote. Their facades are often unprofessional and temporary - Maintenance - Corridor signage is oftentimes in varying stages of disrepair and signs remain Ions after the business has departed. This tends to reEiect an uncaring attitude on the part of the co=xnmity. The Recnmmenef-dorm The Corridor Appearance Task Force believes the following sign star- dards are necessary to bring our roadway corridors into cmnforarity with what a model roadway corridor should look 111m Size -The height and overall square footage of free-standing signs along a model road- way corridor should be in proportion to the horizon and those buildings housing the business for which the signs are designed to advertise. Signs which dominate.the skyline should not be permitted along desigrtated roadway corridors. With the exception of signs for shopping centers of five or afore businesses and businesses immediateiv ad}a- cent to interstate highways, no sign along designated roadway corridors should be more than S feet in height (20 feet is preferred)1 and should not Lxceed 735 square feet in overall size. In addition, building -mounted signs should be no larger than one square foot for each linear foot of building ftntage. Variances shall be considered by appropt- ate governmental body on a case by case basis. In no instance shall a size variance be granted if the sign is deemed out of proportion to either the lot size or the building housing the business being advertised. Clutter - The number of free-standing signs per property= and their proximity to one another needs to be restricted. Along roadway corridors Ieading in to the community there should be no more than one free-standing sign per building, per corridor, with a minimum of 100 feet spacing between signs. 1 In a study pre--ared in 1989 for the American Planning Association entitled Sign lt� ut: ,planners Eric Kelly and Cary Raso de -ermined :0 feet to be the most effective and attractive height for roadwav signs. For the Purposes of this ceporr, property shall mean those proper -des along rmdwav corridors which are either zoned commercally or inre.^.ded for commercial use in sc=rdance Mth the adopted land :se z ians. Design — Design concepts for both free-standing and building -mounted signs should be a part of the. overall design concept of commercial properties located along roadway corridors. Marrument type is a preferred design for free-standing signs, but should not be required as such a restriction would stymie flodbility of design. Building mounted signs should =mplearent the architecture of the building: Permanent Bashing signs and additional billboards along roadway corridors should be prohibited. Temporary signs should be allowed by permit only and then only for a spedSed period of time. Maintenance -- All signs inciudiag those constructed by government should be main tamed so as to present a neat and orderly appearance The owner or leasee of a property should be required to remove signs wham the business they advertise is no longer in operation. Non-Canfnraung Signs — Exmting signs in roadway corridors erected in accordance with applicable regulations at tate time of their erection but not in mrlforatiiq with model roadway corridor requirements enumerated above, shall be "grandfathered" so long as the business continues to operate- Businesses are encouraged to take the initiative In eliazinating non -conforming signs along roadway corridors and local government is encouraged to consider a tax credit for those businesses which take such an initiative. LANDSCAPING The Pmble= Commercal roadway corridors leading into tate community give the appearance of urban deserts with.vast ccpanses of pavement In diose areas in front of businesses and along median strips where vegetation does exist, it is often unkempt or sterile in appearanm 'the]. ecammendation: Landscaping along a roadway corridor is a most effective way of pro- jecting a positive community image. A combination of establishing standards and innovative ini- tiatives can best accomplish the landscaping necessary to improve the appearance of our coaimrmity's roadway corridors. These standards and initiatives are contained in the following recommendations. (I) Existing vegetation should be protected and attractively maintained by owners of property abutting designated roadway corridors. () When not deemed to be a safety factor, the planting of trees should be encouraged along designated roadway corridors. (3) A landscape design should be a part of the permitting process for anv new business and/or new construction along a designated roadway corridor. (4) Natural borders, either level or bermed, should be required in the front of parking Iots that adjoin designated roadway corridors and encouraged around buildings that eldst along such corridors. (5) Those local and state governing bodies with the responsibility of maintainincr road- way corridors need to be made aware of the special importance of the appearance of vegetation in such areas and alerted when lack of mainter=ce rec?ects unfavor- ably upon the community. (6) Whenever possible. Iocal and state government should cooperate %%r th the tool C-arnber of Cann merce in a Gateway :appearance Program designed to souct the 11 support of Ionil landscaping firms in the maintenance and enhancement of corridor medians in return for publicity and recognition. ("l) Those governing bodies responsible for the maintenance should investigate alteraa tines to grass along roadway corridors such as provided for by the Department of Transportation in the V'.rgirua Wildflower Progmm, a program which allows for the sowing of wildflower seeds along Virginia's roadsides. (S) Those responsible for the aiaiatextaiice of roadway corridors should investigate the availability of grants which have been used in other communities to improve the appearance of roadway corridors. The Problem: Overhead utility lines and poles contribute significantly to the Buttered appear_ ante of roadway conzdors. The Recommendation: Develop a 20 year plan, the goal of which is to place all new and erdsting utility lines along roadway corridors tmdergrotatd, or to minimize their visibility through a pro- gram. of relocation and/or screening, In addition, include in the plan the goal of replacing over- head wire supports for traffic signals along roadway corridors with ajasw=ns. LIG�3TIlVG t. The Pmbleaz: Ligating is �eamely im important to the overall appearance ppearartce of roadway corridors. If the lighting is either irmitfrcient or too harsh, the result is an anfavorabhe appearance, Siatiiarly, burned out and IIickering bulbs or tubes reflect an uncaring and, therefore, detrimental 'impression of the commtmity. Fixtures for the light source can also detract from the overall appearance if, bemuse of size or desigrt, they fail to complement the roadscape and character of the community. The Recommendation: Lighting along roadway corridors should be of adequate intensity so as to promote safety and provide an attractive nighttime vista for motorists. Lighting should be arranged as to reduce glare. The lighting fixture should be of a size and design that enhances, not detracts, from the overall appearance of roadway corridors. In no use should the light fixture e:cceed 30 feet in height_ All lighting connectons should be underground. Property owners and highway maintenance divisions should be encouraged to replace inappropriate and inoperable lights, light fxtures, poles and bases. BUMDLNGS The Problem: Poor building designs often detract from the appearance of roadway corridors. All too often cornmercal areas have been developed without any mnsidemtion of ar&itect:ural stvie or size in relation to their surroundings. Sonne building Cacmdes have been allowed to deteriorate to the point that thev are nctice3bly unattended and unattractive. The Recommendation: Standards need to be set for buildings along roadway corridors. The architecture of newly -constructed buildings along roadway corridors shouldbe reviewed so as to insure their architecture and size complement the roadscape and the communis charact w. the facades of existing commercial buildings along roadway corndoa should be .maintained. When there is a change of ownership, use or a major building madifcation, corisideration should be given to requiring changes that enhance the building's attractiveness and complement the appear- ance of the roadscaoe. C RCUL.ATION The Proble= Access to and from roadway corridors is often haphazard with little orno consid- eration given to either safety or convenience. Furthermore, the location of ill-advised accessways reduces the opportunity for appearance enhancements. The Recommendation Coser scrutiny of the functional and aesthetic aspects of dreuIation needs to be undertaken during the site planning process. In order to provide safe and efficient travel along roadway corridors, minimum spacing of 150 feet should be required between accessways. No new lot should be created along a roadway corridor unless spacing requirements are met or access is provided through shared or casting access. Onveways with entrances on roadway cor- ridors which do not meet spacing requirements should be allowed only when there is no reason- able alternative which meets the soacng requirements. Driveways should be well defined and not less than wa traffic twenty-four (24) feet in width for two-way traffic and twelve (12) feet in width for one - Y CONCLUSION The Corridor Appearance Task Force recognizes that implementing the recommendations in this report will not be easy. Some of the recommendations will take considerable time and expense. However, because the attractive appearance of our roadway corridors is so vital to the continued development of our community, the Corridor Appearance Task Force encourages the prompt consideration by Iocal authorities of a Roadway Corridor Plan which would detail how the rec- omraendations contained in this report are to be implemented. The Corridor Appearance Task te Forencourages the business community to support this effort and to work cooperatively with local government officials towards making the roadway corridors Ieading into our Ali America Community a source of pride for the residents of Winchester -Frederick County. . Date Approved 6 R. Q Williams, Chairs:san Corridor .appearance Task Forte APPENDr< A Partnership Improves Town's Entranceway Fust impressions are often lasting im- pressions, and Blacksburg's local lead- ers want peaale to get a good first im- pressian of their town. As a result, the town government bundled a publictonvate partnership. Called the South Entranca Lands=ae Project. to beautify and Improve the souin- era entrance into Blacksburg. This part- narshio cuiminated in the planting of more Man 570.000 wenn of material in the wittier 1991 and spring of 1992. The project'uas =ncaived when resi- do= and busirteszes expressed can- een't that the widening of South Main Street, the majcnauteaf entry into Blacks- burg. would have a detrimental effect on the aesthetic quality of the former rural road. Citizens debated the impact of the read widening an the town's oharactar, and a bitter schism between residents and businesses resulted from the issue ofbudding medians, whict ultimately were not lncuded. Emerging from the debate. however, Carne acommon concern forthe aesthet- ics of the roadway and for the establish - mom of an entrance to the town consis- tett with the town's ctarzio:er. The landscace proisa that daveiaped iaresponse to this common ==rn was envisioned as a way to tum a utilitarian roadway into an attractive, inviting urban area. Gams for the prciect included cre- ation of a =crdiriated and canasive en- trance to Bla=curg. enhancement of business entrances and improvements for pedestrians. Community a vcivement was vital to this project. First. ;.`me need forme project and the vision far the design arose from cWzen concern. Second. limited town staff aria .minimal initial funding made community involvement necessary to tr:e project's organization aha acrosnistration. The la= gcvernrrantfcrrea the South Main Street Lancscace Committee to sat goals far the prciec:, to reccmmend a IandsCape ar=tect to the town manager and towomwuh the ccnsuitant to ac-iteve the desired results. Comm, rrae mamoers consisted of r epresantatives of Town- scape, a ccrnmunuy beauttficaucrm com- mittee, the town's accrtomc develop- mentcccrcinatcr, thecublic,.vorJcsdirec:or and the town'IIcni=ltunst. The ccmmi;;aa met mcntnly with the arc.~1taC::,1r0Lg:!p1;; ;he C:^GSCtual ana design caveicccent masa c; the cc�lac:. Citizen cc^rrrans arc s::9y3st...'t5 .rare solici:ec at all s:_—;3S or crate :. ;r.a rale., - bomacc gr nessas. were The commicas faced and mat several challenges in their planning. One was a problem of limited public tight -cif -way aiong the =rridor. how to suaetscace a right-of-way extending a halt foot to 1 foot behind the sidawalk7 There was also the question of how to consistently maintain the landscape with 30 or more property Owners along the route and many vacant or undeveloped prapenias. As a result the committee forged an agree- mentwnereby trio property owners would donate an easement for the land neces- sary to plant and the town would assume maintenance for the finished project. The beautification proiect sarved a community need, but it went beyond the scope of current public funding. To ad- dress this issue, a publicdprivate South Main Fundraising Committee was forted to bring together the business commu- nity and residents in a unified attempt to raise donations. As the committee sat out to target groups for fundraising. it quickly realized that success depended on support from a broad bass of the population and that MOM individual involvernentwas needed. Supporters of the project grew in n=- berand became known as Friends of the South Main landscape. Individuats and organizations served as community con- tacts. increasing awareness and project support Their campaign foarsed on car- poraw donors not necessarily in tris ccr. rider. adjacent business and propsry owners and incividuaf community donors. The ccmmtree used press releases. newspacer articles, public -meetings and individual cantars to enhance public participation in the process. Mass mari- Ings to residents. businesses, serv'ca organization ana Virginia Tech stucent groups were used also. Finally, the com- mittee arganizsc a fundraising dinner and grcuncbreaking ceremony to keec the project in the cuaiic eye. . As of April 1992. more than $147,000 had been pledged to the crajec:. The town also received S27.5C0 in grant funcs from Global ReLsaf. the Small Business Administration and Green Virginia =o. The prcjec: carsis-.s of r vo chases. Phasa 1 tnCuded pfanurg street trees. ever- green and flowering- trees at intersec- dons and revagetatfon of cut slopes with Perennials. evergreens and seedling trees HQkie Stene, a beat building mate- ri4 was used in the center lame between tura lanes to- break up the expanse of pavement while improving the appear- ance of the corridor. Phase Il indudes the planting of more trees. shrubs and porenniais and place - mm of banners on light pain The ban- ners will be installed at rtta{or intersec- tk= and may be clanged to highlight Seasonal activities and holidays. Once the funding for Phase l was en- sured. a landscape cantra=rwas hired to lnstaU the plants. To maximize funds, town Crews supervised by the town hor- tkrsAuist installed 224 street trees and the Hokie stone inlays. Phase I of the aroiec has been =m - plated. and the local government is com- mitted to maintaining the plants and lanc- scaped beds in the improved area. To do 30. the town has reassigned one am- playee to the landsce crew and plans to hr'e a part-time gardener to help main- tain the area. Residents have particpatad in the Project by making annancr s or sponsor- ing trees. A total of a9 trees were spon- sored for Phase I, and a brass plaque commemorating :he individual Or crgani- zad= will be installed near each spon- sored tree. The projec: results are a scures of community prize, and may be the imce- tus for other Manung prcjecz. Panici- parits have ranged from ire sctoot rooms to the board rooms of the town. As a result this pubiiccnvate carthersnic has turned the hely-aecatec five -lane hign- way into an an:ac.;ve uroan parkway in keeping with the cnaraaer of B lacxszurg. More imperzm.:rirs crgw. may serve as a mccal fcr other :owns. it dem- onstrates t at a mwn czn retain its cnar- aCar and develop usacte urban scacas that meet tna eccrrcr c ,needs of busi- ness and :ne aes;nanc desires of the cbmmunmty. ViFGi •:f'� 7CW�! 3 CITY/CL.,,�a- APPE_-NDIX B MARTZ SV ILLS B LLT -17-2,r Martinsville. Virginia Beautificationgoal readzed as poppies bloom ori U,S,58 By DONNA BRIM Sud6po a seO weiear Last year, the idea of =kutg his bemetown amore beautiful piece .v= planted In tee= Trent's mina This month, as poppies and larkspur began to spring up in the median along U.S. Sd East, his idea bloomed. Trent said the notion of planting flowers along a mile -long strip sprang up after he had writ:an t ;e Norte Carolina Department of Transportation for literature about wddnowers. He planted hu first wildflowers three years ago to enhance the Landscape at his bone and business, Charlie W. Treat & Co. Inc in Chatma= even flowers that weren't native to this area thr2ved. and he later decided to use wildflowers in a higoway beautif cation pro jet rd seen a program in North Carolina where flowers were planted along the banks and me- dians to help deter people from Trent said he was surprised when See TRENT, Page LA (Coatinaed From Page I -A) throwing trash on the highway. And I decided to give It a t+y herr,,• said Trent, whose company "adopted" two tai.Ies of highway oa US. 58 East two years ago. As he began planning the pro- ject. Trent said he decided to dedicate It to the late House Speaker A.L Philpott of Bassett "because he did so much for southwest Virginia.•• Not latowing where to begin. Trent first called Joel Amos, local resident engineer for the state Department of Transportatin (DOT), who advised hint to con- tact the depart nest's Sale^z of- Hce. But when he called the depart- ment he was told no state funds were available for the type of pro- ject be envisioned. Unwilling to give up his Idea. Trent made the depart:.•nent an offer. "I asked the -al that if my com- pany bourht the seeds, would the state pay to have them planted,'* be said. "And they agreed." Laura Bullock, community af- fairs coordinator for the Salem District of the Depar=nent of Transporation, said the depart- ment accepts donations of money, seeds and labor from groups wan- ting to Landscape areas. WiL`i the help of Dar, eil E. Bower, a i,,�d..�capcspec:lli:: �;L`: the C.rscor'.1Lon dept' -e.^.C• Trent learned which wildlowers would grow best in this area. Them he seiec''d which ones he wanted pplanted: coreopis, care poppies. black-eyed Susans, tick seed, dames rocket and rocket larkspur. Trent said that combination will allow for blooms from April unta September and all but the poppies, which are annuals and have to be re -seeded. will bloom every year_ With all the plans in place, Trent said the physical aspect of the project began last suer when the highway derar'r tent sprayed herbicides to kill the weeds and grass in the area where the wildflowers were to be planted. The seeds were rtized and planted at the begirting of November. "It's not been as simple as peo- pie think," said Trent, who has a file several inches thick concur - Ing the paperwork it took to get the project approved and completed_ "Itinvolved an awful lot of work." This sprang, as the lavender larkspur and red and pi ik poppies began to bloom, Trent said all L`:e time, money and effort were worthwhile..�ltl�ough he would:.': dcscfose the cot of the project and Bullock of telae transportation depart^ent said C.'te c= was not available, Trent said it was the best inve=n ent ti" company ever las made. you can do sorndt!:.-.s to cna-ke '_`:e world a lire pre �er.