HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 01-04-95 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
JANUARY 4, 1995
7.00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes of November 16, 1994 ....................... A
2) Bimonthly Report ...................................... B
31 Committee Reports ............. ......... .............. C
4) Citizen Comments ..................................... D
5) flection of Officers ................................ . ... E
6) Reappointment of George Romm.e ns liaison to the Economic Development
Commission ........................... . ............. F
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7) Recommended Update of Comprehensive Poiley Plan
(Mr. Tierney) ....................................... G
8) Conditional Use Permit #012-94 of Mark Anderson & James Casey for a veterinarian
hospital with office space. This property is located at 667 Walter's Mill Lane (Route
836) and identified as PIN 44-A-100 in the Stonewall District.
(Mr. Miller) ......................................... H
2
OTHER ITEMS
9) Informal Discussion with Linden Unger Regarding a Possible Rezoning.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................ I
10) Informal Discussion Regarding the Linwood Ritter Request for Sewer Extension.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................ J
11) Informal Discussion Regarding a Possible Rezoning on Route 7.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................ K
12) Discussion Regarding the Capital Improvements Plan
(Mr. Lawrence) ....................................... L
13) Discussion Regarding Agricultural & Forestal Districts.
(Mr. Wyatt) ........................................ M
14) Discussion Regarding ISTEA
(Mr. Wyatt) .........................................N
15) Issues and Strategies from the 1994 Retreat
(Mr. Watkins)........................................O
MISCELLANEOUS
16) Other ............................................ P
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
November 16, 1994.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman;
John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee
District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro
District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall
District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro
District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at
Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester
City Liaison.
Planning Staff present: Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director/Secretary; W.
Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner I1; and Kris C.
Tierney, Deputy Planning Director.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of
October 5, 1994 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's
information.
2
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plan - 11/8/94 Mtg
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CP&PS reviewed the Comprehensive Plan.
She said that the Plan will be presented to the Commission for discussion on December 7 and
public hearing on January 4. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the CP&PS discussed a request for the
inclusion of a 27 -acre parcel, located between Merrimans Lane and 37, in the UDA. She said
that the subcommittee also Iooked at the CIP for next year and there are only two new requests --
the addition of a maintenance building on Papermill Road by the School Board and a request for
an addition to the landfill. She said that the subcommittee hopes to present the CIP to the
Planning Commission in January.
Economic Development Commission
Mr. Romine reported that the Existing Industry Call Team recently met. Mr.
Romine said that this team regularly calls on local industry to help them find solutions to any
problems they may be experiencing. He said that this program has worked out very well.
Historic Resources Advisory Board - 11/15/94 Mtg.
Mr. Morris reported that the HRAB had discussions regarding the issuance of
plaques for local historical structures. It was decided that the first issuance of those plaques
should be to the local structures in the community that appear on the National Register (9) and
one should be also be issued for the courthouse.
Ci1y of Winchester - 11/15/94 Mtg.
Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the City approved a subdivision that would allow
for medical office buildings to be placed just east of the McDonald's property, off Amherst
Street. Mr. DiBenedetto said that they also approved the rezoning of the last few pieces of
property, with the exception of one area, that will bring the City into Compliance with their
Comprehensive Plan. He said that there was also a discussion on the City's outdoor storage
problem.
3
Battlefield Task Force - 11/14/94 Mtg.
Mr. Light said that the Battlefield Task Force discussed ideas that were presented
at the last forum. Mr. Light said that Mr. Watkins reported that he would be applying for
additional ISTEA money for potential battlefield application.
SUBDIVISIONS:
Subdivision Application #011-94 of Preston Place to subdivide for proposed apartments
and townhouses. This property is located on the north side of Airport Road (Rt. 645),
just east of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522), and is identified as PIN 64 -A -45C in the Shawnee
District.
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller said that the master plan for this property stipulates that any deed
conveying land in this area must indicate the proximity to the airport and the possible ensuing
noise associated with the airport. Mr. Miller said that this addresses comments of the Airport
Authority.
Mr. Fred Price, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, was representing the
owners of the property. Mr. Price said that the owners of the 22 -acre parcel, the Silver
Company, would be selling 7.44 acres to Castle Developments for apartment development; and
the Silver Company will retain ownership of the remaining 14 acres, which is proposed for
townhouses.
Commissioners asked the applicant for the distance between this property and the
nearest runway and if the developers were aware of the deed covenants requested by the county.
Mr. Price said that the approach/take-off path is within 1/2 to 1/4 mile away from this property.
Mr. Price said that the developers were aware of the county's request that potential buyers be
made aware of the noise possibility and language was incorporated into deeds, covenants, and
lease/rental agreements.
The Commission felt that the request was in conformance with the approved
master plan and that it met the requirements of the subdivision and zoning ordinances.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve Subdivision Application #011-94 of Preston Place to subdivide for apartments and
townhouses.
Cl
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE XIV. FLOODPLAIN (FP) DISTRICTS,
CHAPTER 165, ZONING ORDINANCE
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt said that this amendment would allow recreational vehicles within
floodplain areas provided that specific requirements are met. Mr. Wyatt said that these
requirements are consistent with FEMA regulations and will allow Frederick County to meet the
standards necessary to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
amendment.
There were no public comments.
The Planning Commission did not have any outstanding problems with the
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
approve the ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article
XIV, FP Floodplain Districts, Section 165-106F, Use limitations, as follows:
165-106F Recreational vehicles are permitted to be parked in the floodplain district provided
the following conditions are met:
1) The recreational vehicle is fully licensed.
2) The recreational vehicle is installed on wheels and ready for highway use.
3) The recreational vehicle is attached to the site only by quick disconnect
type utilities and security devices.
4) The recreational vehicle has no permanently attached additions.
5
DISCUSSION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER FOR THE LORD
FAIRFAX DISTRICT STEVE STIEFEL
Mr. Steve Stiefel, the Environmental Health Manager for the Lord Fairfax
District, was present to brief the Commission on several recent changes to the environmental
health regulations and their impact on Frederick County citizens.
The first issue discussed by Mr. Stiefel was Senate Bill 4-15 which dealt with
prioritizing sewage disposal permits. He said that repair work has always been first priority,
applications in conjunction with building permits will now be the second priority, third is sewage
disposal construction permits that have soil work attached from a private soil consultant, and the
fourth priority is for soil certification letters for people who are not planning construction within
an 18 month period.
Mr. Stiefel said that there was also a change in the policy on how the Health
Department processes older permits that were issued under the 1971 regulations. He said that
in a number of cases, the Health Department has been unable to renew some of these older
permits, based on the soil conditions of the site. He said that the policy has been revised so that
these permits can now be renewed by using the best available technology. Mr. Stiefel said that
this will mean using some alternative systems, such as sand filters, pre -treating effluent, etc.
The third issue discussed by Mr. Stiefel was the alternative systems. He said that
the Health Department is proposing changes to the on-site regulations that would ease up
regulations on experimental systems. He said that these regulations are proposed and have not
yet been to public hearing; however, if they are approved, it will probably have a large impact
on this area.
Mr. Stiefel was interested in forming a technical advisory committee to examine
alternative systems and ways to maintain and monitor these systems in preparation for the new
regulations and new technologies that will be coming down the road.
Commissioners felt that alternative systems have been discussed many times in the
past. They felt it was time to make some concrete decisions on this subject and move forward.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING A POTENTIAL REZONING LOCATED ON
THE WET SIDE OF RT. 522 NORTH FROM RA TO 132 (RONALD FEATHERS
PROPERTY
Mr. Tierney said that Ms. Sharon Stine would like to discuss the potential
rezoning of a 2.5 acre parcel located on the west side of Route 522 North from RA (Rural
Areas) to B2 (Business General). He said that the property is located between Omps Garage and
Reading Landscape and has frontage on both Route 522 and Route 709 (Bryarly Road).
Ms. Sharon Stine, of Sharon Stine Real Estate, came forward and commented on
the number of businesses along this stretch of Route 522. Mrs. Stine said that she counted 24
businesses from the Virginia Farm Market to Reading Landscapes. She said that they are
interested in preserving the Bryarly Road side of their property as residential and plan to use the
Route 522 frontage of the property as the entrance. Mrs. Stine felt they could get the necessary
permission from VDOT for the entrance. Mrs. Stine also stated that they would be willing to
proffer out automobile sales and service and any other objectionable uses.
Mr. Wayne Ridgeway, who was requesting the rezoning as the potential purchaser
of the property, was also present. Mr. Ridgeway said that he planned to use approximately 3/4
acre of the total 2 1/2 acre parcel, however, he planned to ask for rezoning of the entire parcel.
He said that he planned to construct a 1,000 square foot building and he planned a buffer zone
between the business and residential areas. He said that he planned to lease U -Haul trucks and
trailers, wood -splitters, chainsaws, extension ladders, etc. and planned to sell hardware items
such as shipping materials, tools, etc.
Staff noted that the zoning ordinance classifies rental of U -Hauls as a B3 use,
whereas hardware sales would be a B2 use.
Commissioners felt that Mr. Ridgeway needed to determine whether the hardware
store or the U -Haul rental would be the principal use of the property, so that he could request
the appropriate zoning category. They felt that the U -Haul rental might be classified as
accessory, if the primary use was hardware sales. Some of the Commissioners questioned the
fact that Mr. Ridgeway wanted to rezone the entire parcel, when only 3/4 acre would be used
for the business. Commissioners were in favor of Mr. Ridgeway proffering out objectionable
uses. No action was needed by the Commission at this time.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH MR. LINWOOD RITTER
Mr. Miller stated that Mr. Linwood Ritter, the owner of Pioneer Trailer Park, was
present to discuss the possibility of extending public sewer to his trailer park with a connection
at Sherando Park. Mr. Miller said that the Pioneer Trailer Park is located off Route 277, on
Hudson Hollow Road (Rt. 636) and is adjacent to Sherando Park.
Mr. Linwood Ritter said that he wanted to extend the sewer service from Sherando
Park, which is less than 300' from his trailer park. Mr. Ritter said that the DEQ suggested the
county connection because they are interested in eliminating lagoon systems throughout the state.
He said that the DEQ would like to see his lagoon system turned over to public sewer since it
was located so near to a connection. He said that the Sanitation Authority has recommended a
2 1/2 inch line. Mr. Ritter that the DEQ suggested another option, which was a tertiary plant
similar to the one at Forest Lakes.
Mr. Ritter said that he has five houses and 11 mobile homes at his park (there is
a total of 12 mobile home lots). Mr. Ritter said that the property is zoned MH1 and they use
well water.
The Planning Commission noted that Sherando Park was becoming a popular water
connection in this area. It was pointed out that if sewer was provided to this parcel, the
allowable density would automatically increase to eight units per acre, which would be 40 units.
Some of the Commissioners felt that this request needed to be viewed in
conjunction with the Fulton extension. Chairman Golladay stated that he was in favor of the
Fulton request as long as the houses along Route 636 were given the opportunity to hook on, but
he was not in favor of extending the sewer as far as the trailer park because of the increased
allowable density. He felt it would create a precedent setting situation for other areas of the
county.
Mr. Thomas pointed out the potential environmental problem of having sewage
lagoons next to the park and lake.
The Planning Commission felt this request should be sent to the CP&PS for a
recommendation and to look at expansion of the UDA and the SWSA. No other action was
needed at this time.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE
IV SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS SECTION 165-30 SIGNS
Mr. Wyatt said that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee
(DRRS) discussed proposed draft amendments regarding the existing sign regulations in the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wyatt said that these amendments were created as a result of work done
by the Chamber of Commerce Corridor Appearance Task Force (CATF). Mr. Wyatt said that
CATF had created a report that provided recommendations to assist with the long term
appearance of roadway corridors leading into the community. He said that the CATF's report
was limited to the primary roadway corridors leading into the City of Winchester and not the
county as a whole.
Mr. Wyatt said that the staff believed that the proposed amendments needed to
reflect the community as a whole to ensure consistency in our commercial and industrial areas,
to avoid the creation of overlay districts simply for sign regulations, and to mitigate problems
with future corridors. He said that if regulations are consistent, Frederick County will not have
to repeat this exercise when less significant or future commercial and industrial corridors are
developed throughout the county.
There was discussion among the Commissioners as to whether the sign
requirements should be county -wide or limited to the primary road corridors leading into the City
of Winchester. They also discussed whether the regulations should just apply to the B 1, B2, and
B3 Districts and not the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning Districts. Their discussion focused on the
economic standpoint versus the beautification standpoint.
There was also concern about the feasibility of existing businesses areas meeting
the minimum spacing requirements and some commissioners felt the county may want to
accommodate existing businesses on an individual basis.
Commissioners also felt that county regulations should be similar to those required
by the City of Winchester and surrounding jurisdictions.
It was decided that more study needed to be done before the amendments were
advertised for public hearing. No other action was taken by the Commission at this time.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING PORTABLE SIGNS
Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS reviewed the sign recommendations specified in
the final report of the CATF and they agreed with most of the recommendations, but expressed
concern regarding the lack of information pertaining to portable signs. Mr. Wyatt said that the
staff met with CATF and the Chamber of Commerce and determined that they were not opposed
to the allowance of portable signs, however, they believed that these type of signs should be
permitted and limited to a specific time period. This would allow for special sales and
promotions to be advertised but would allow an enforcement method, if these signs became
permanent in nature. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS would like some direction from the
Commission on what guidelines should be established regarding this issue.
The Commission discussed the pros and cons associated with portable signs and
some of their comments were: Although the advertising effectiveness of some portable signs was
questionable, they felt temporary portable signs could be useful under certain circumstances; they
felt that portable signs should be permitted for a certain time frame, even though it may be
difficult to police them; Commissioners felt that a problem arises when the temporary portable
sign becomes permanent; other areas of concern centered around the size and type of the portable
sign and its placement. It was pointed out that some portable signs throughout the county create
a safety hazard because they block visibility and some are placed in VDOT's right-of-way.
No action was needed by the Commission at this time.
Z
OTHER
Chairman Golladay said that a letter was received from Mr. Shannon Watson
concerning his opposition to the James Carroll rezoning. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas
and seconded by Mr. Marker, the Commission unanimously agreed to make the letter a part of
the official record.
ADJOURNMENT
p.m.
No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:00
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report
DATE: December 19, 1994
(1) Rezonin s Pending: dates are submittal dates
C. L. Robinson
03/30/94
BkCk
RA
to
B3
Brown Lovett, Jr.
09/14/94
Ston
RA
to
Ml
James Carroll
10/07/94
Shaw
RP
to
B2
Valley Mill Estates
11/10/94
Shaw
RA
to
RP
(2) Rezoninas Approved:
(dates are
BOS meeting
dates)
Frederick Mall
12/14/94
Shaw
RA
to
RP
Frederick Mall
12/14/94
Shaw
RA
to
RP
(3) Rezonings Denied: (dates are BOS meeting dates)
None
(4) Conditional Use Permits Pending: dates are submittal dates
Mark Anderson & Veterinarian
James Casey 12/08/94 Ston hospital/office
(5) Conditional Use Permits Approved: dates are approval dates
Robin Dassler 12/14/94 Gaines Private Dog Breeding
Kennel
(6) Conditional Use Permits Denied: dates are denial dates
Joe Edmiston 12/14/94 BcCk Kennel
2
(7) Site Plans Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. 09/12/89 Opeq Trmt.facil
Grace Brethren Church
06/08/90
Shaw
Church
F'
Alex Tech
'1 / 1 r/ U
-Lu/z--)/ 9V
(1 Y� .�
�l.c.�xI
T Y om:
Lgt. Indus4�..Lal
Lake Centre
05/15/91
Shaw
Townhouses
Red Star Express Lines
05/24/91
Ston
Whse. Addition
Garber
07/26/94
Shaw
Retail Commercial
Kraft General Foods
10/06/94
Ston
Addition
Shenandoah Valley Baptist
10/14/94
Opeq
Classroom Addition
Westminster Canterbury
11/16/94
Gaines
Duplex Housing
Cracker Barrell
12/20/94
Shaw
Dining Addition
Federal Express
12/16/94
Shaw
Warehouse
Bank of Clarke Co.
12/16/94
Shaw
New Bank Branch
(8) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval -
dates) -
Regency Lakes Sec. C
12/01/94
Ston
Mobile Homes
Taco Bell
12/09/94
Gaines
Restaurant
Preston Place Apt. II
12/09/94
Shaw
Apartments
Amoco Foam
12/09/94
Ston
Outdoor Storage
(9) Subdivisions Pending: dates are submittal dates
Briarwood Est. 01/04/94 Ston
Hampton Chase Sec. I 10/05/94 Ston
Negley 10/11./94 Stan
Preston Place 10/31/94 Shaw
(10) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C or BOS approval
dates
Abrams Point,
Lake Centre
Fredericktowne
Harry Stimpson
Phase I
Est., Sec 8 & 9
06/13/90
Shaw
06/19/91
Shaw
10/06/93
Opeq
10/26/94
Opeq
(11) PMDP Pending: -(dates are submittal dates)_
Fieldstone Heights 04/25/94
Westminster Canterbury 11/16/94
(12) PMDP Approved: (Dates are approval dates)
Ston
Gaines
Saratoga Meadows 12/16/94 Shaw
3
(13) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval• (dates are BOS approval
dates
Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 BaCk
James R. Wilkins III 04/14/93 Shaw
Star Fort 09/14/94 Gain
(14) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending•(submit dates)
Weber's Nursery
11/08/94
Ston
Margaret Johnson
11/21/94
BaCk
Burger King
11/23/94
Gain
Burger King
11/23/94
Gain
Amoco
11/23/94
Gain
Amoco
11/23/94
Gain
Holiday Inn
11/2"3/94
Opeq
Holiday Inn
11/23/94
Opeq
(15) BZA Applications Approved• (approval dates)
None
(16) BZA Applications Denied•
None
(17) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER
None
1E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT 170 Nov. 15-30
1. Plan Reviews Approvals, and Site Inspections:
Eric Lawrence reviewed a revised master development plan
for Westminster -Canterbury. The revisions include the addition of
six residential units to the development.
Evan Wyatt reviewed the following:
A master development plan for the proposed Saratoga
Meadows single family subdivision along Senseny Road.
A revised site plan for improvements at the Winchester
Regional Airport.
A revised master development plan for Preston Place II
Apartments and Townhouses which was approved during this time
period.
A site plan for Preston Place II Apartments in Phase I.
2. Meetings
Bob Watkins and Kris Tierney met with Chuck Maddox to
discuss development proposals.
Evan Wyatt participated in an EDC meeting at the
Winchester Regional Airport to provide information regarding a site
in the Airport Business Center.
Evan Wyatt met with Bonner Architects to discuss the
construction of a proposed maintenance hanger and office building
at the Winchester Regional Airport.
Evan Wyatt and Eric Lawrence met with Construction
Management to discuss right-of-way abandonment procedures along
Victory Road, as well as requirements for the construction of the
Federal Express building in the AeroBusiness Center.
3. Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee
Kris Tierney and Evan Wyatt revised the Transportation
Section of the Comprehensive Plan for this year's update.
4. Violations
Jean Moore and Eric Lawrence continue to respond to
citizen complaints about Zoning Ordinance violations.
5. Professional Development
Eric Lawrence participated in highway capacity model
training at the Virginia Transportation Research Council.
The annual Planning Commission Retreat was held in
Berkeley Springs. A wide variety of issues were discussed.
6. Other
Evan Wyatt updated information regarding the proposed
Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District. It is
anticipated that this information will be presented to the
Agricultural and Forestal District Standing Committee in December.
Bob Watkins attended the Lord Fairfax PDC legislative
dinner. Legislative issues were discussed with state
representatives.
1E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #71 Dec. 1-1.5
1. Com rehensive Plans and Programs Committee
Jean Moore is in the process of reviewing and formatting
the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan for 1995.
Eric Lawrence modified the 1995-96 Capital Improvements
Plan to reflect the comments of the Comprehensive Plans and
Programs Committee. The draft 1995--96 CIP will be presented to the
Planning Commission at the January 3, 1995 Planning Commission
meeting.
2. Battlefield Preservation Issues
Bob Watkins met with Board Chairman Richard Dick, County
Administrator John Riley, and the Historical Society's Mary Jane
Light to discuss a possible historic sites publication.
Bob Watkins and Mark Lemasters met with Gennie Keller and
Milt Herd, our consultants working on the battlefield plan, to
discuss progress and strategies.
Bob Watkins met with City Planning Director, Tim Youmans,
to discuss transportation and battlefield issues.
Bob Watkins attended the Lord Fairfax PDC Battlefield
Committee meeting. A presentation was given on the Lees Retreat
project in southern Virginia.
Bob Watkins and Mark Lemasters attended the Battlefield
Task Force meeting. Mr. Watkins led a discussion on battlefield
plan goals and strategies.
3. GTS
The GIS staff has assisted management of the Town of
Luray with information toward creating a GIS Plan and hiring a GIS
consultant.
The GIS staff met with the Shenandoah Valley GIS Users
Group, made contacts, and requested environmental data for GIS use.
The GIS staff is upgrading equipment and software for GIS
work.
The GIS staff has successfully transferred and created a
tax map from AutoCAD into Arclnfo.
4. Transportation
Bob Watkins attended the Lord Fairfax PDC Transportation
Technical Meeting.
5. Plan Reviews, Approvals, and Site Inspections:
Site Plans were approved for Preston Place II, Taco Bell,
and Amoco Foam.
Master Development Plans were approved for Lake View
Apartments and Saratoga Meadows.
Jean Moore reviewed a site plan for an addition to
Cracker Barrel and a preliminary site plan for a minor addition to
VDO.
Eric Lawrence reviewed a preliminary site plan for a
Federal Express Facility in the Aerocenter Business Park and a
preliminary site plan for six residential duplex units in the
Westminster Canterbury development.
Evan Wyatt reviewed the following: A site plan for the
Preston Place II Apartment complex on Airport Road; a site plan for
a new maintenance hanger with offices at the Winchester Regional
Airport on Airport Road; revisions to the Price Club site plan on
Front Royal Pike; revisions to the Amoco Foam site plan on
Martinsburg Pike; revisions to the Lake View Apartments Master
Development Plan on Chinkapin Drive; and revisions to the Saratoga
Meadows Master Development Plan on Senseny Road.
6. Meetings
Bob Watkins met with representatives of Clifford and
Associates to discuss a rezoning proposal.
Evan Wyatt participated in a Technical Review Committee
meeting to discuss proposals for the development of two warehouse
facilities in the Stonewall Industrial Park, and the construction
of a Holiday Inn near Stephens City.
Evan Wyatt and Gary DeOms met with the Agricultural and
Forestal District Standing Committee to present two proposed
districts along Double Church Road and Refuge Church Road.
Jean Moore met with Assistant Commonwealth Attorneys,
Glenn R. Williamson and Jay D. Cook, III to discuss the legal
implications of administrative appeal #014-94 that will go before
the Board of Zoning Appeals on December 20, 1994.
Jean Moore met with Mr. Manuel G. Semples to review
variances that will appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals on
December 20, 1994.
On December 6, Kris Tierney met with Midge Mitchel of
Sharon Stine Realty to discuss proffers for a proposed rezoning on
Route 522 North in Albin. A client is interested in B-3
(Industrial Transition) zoning. This item went before the Planning
Commission in November as an informal discussion.
On December 8, Kris met with Steve Gyurisin to discuss a
possible rezoning and buffering requirements within the RT&T
Business Park near the interchange of Route 37 and 11 South.
On December 13, Kris met with Harry Benham to discuss
proffers on the Frederick Mall Land Trust Rezoning. The owners
agreed to increase the proffered amounts for schools, parks and
recreation, and fire and rescue.
7. Historic Resources Advisor Board
The Historic Resources Advisory Board is finalizing plans
for the Historic Plaque Program. It is their intention to
inaugurate the program with a formal presentation in early 1995.
8. Board of -Zoning Appeals
Jean Moore researched reviewed and made comments for
the following variances:
Variance application #013-94 of Weber's Nursery (located
on Martinsburg Pike) for a 35' set back variance.
Variance application #014-94 of Margaret Johnson to
appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision that they are in
violation of the Frederick County Code by keeping a horse on their
residential property zoned R-5.
Variance applications #015-94 and #016-94 of William B.
Holtzman for a sign height and size variance for the proposed
Burger King to be located at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike
and Welltown Road.
Variance application #017-94 and #018-94 of William B.
Holtzman for a sign height and size variance for the proposed Amoco
to be located at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Welltown
Road.
Variance application #019-94 and #020-94 of Mr. Walter H.
Aikens for a sign height and size variance for the proposed Holiday
Inn Express to be located on Town Run Lane.
9. Professional Development
Bob Watkins attended the Virginia Planning Directors
meeting in Richmond. Conditional zoning, plan review procedures,
and other topics were discussed.
Evan Wyatt, Jean Moore, and Kris Tierney attended the
fall conference of the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning
Association in Richmond. Sessions included discussions of needed
improvements to the proffer system and Principal Centered
Leadership.
10. Personnel
Interviews were held to hire a Graphics Design Technician
to serve as the GIS cartographer. Clayton Grant was hired.
11. Other
Jean Moore and Evan Wyatt are working together to
streamline the site plan review process.
Bob Watkins is working with Professional Data
Consultants, Inc. of Winchester on an upgrade to the computer
network system.
Bob Watkins, Kris Tierney, and other staff members worked
on planning the new offices on the fourth floor of the Courthouse
Associates Building.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Election of Officers and Meeting Schedule
DATE: December 21, 1994
At the first meeting of each new year, the Planning Commission elects officers for the upcoming
year. The Planning Commission will need to elect a Chairman, a Vice Chairman, and a
Secretary.
The Commission will also need to decide on their 1995 meeting schedule. In the past, our
meetings have been held the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. and have
been held in The Old Frederick County Courthouse on North Loudoun Street in Winchester.
Worksessions, if needed, have been held on the fourth Monday of each month.
RWW/rsa
9 North Lolldolln SIICCt P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Reappointment of George Romine to the EDC
DATE: December 21, 1994
Mr. George L. Romine's term on the Economic Development Commission will expire on
January 31, 1995. Members of the Economic Development Commission are appointed by the
respective governing bodies, Planning Commissions, and Industrial Development Authorities.
Appointments are for a three-year term.
The staff is recommending that Mr. Romine be reappointed by the Planning Commission.
RWW/rsa
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester. VA 21601 Winchester, VA 22604
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Recommended Update of Comprehensive Policy Plan
DATE: December 15, 1994
Attached is the recommended 1995 draft update of the Comprehensive Policy Plan which
was discussed at your December 7 meeting. As you will recall, items such as housing, school
enrollment, and employment figures have been updated to reflect the most recent
information. Also this year, in addition to the these annual statistical updates, minor
editorial changes and other small changes have been made and we have included a
significant amount of information from the recently completed corridor report. This
information is included within the Land Use chapter.
We have also revised the Eastern Road Plan as was discussed in December and have added
a small tract (27 acres situated between Merriman's Lane and Route 37) to the Urban
Development Area in response to a citizen request.
Please let me know if you have any questions on the proposed update.
KCT/rsa
Attachment
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
P/C Review Date: 1/04/95
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 012-94
MARK ANDERSON AND JAMES CASEY
VETERINARIAN HOSPITAL/OFFICE
LOCATION: This property is located at 667 Walter's Mill Lane (Route
836) .
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 44-A-100
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• Zoned RA (Rural Areas)
Land use - Residential & Dog Kennel
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), EM
Lane Use - agriculture,
mining of limestone
PROPOSED USE: Veterinarian Hospital/Office
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: No objections to a
conditional use permit being issued for this property.
Additional traffic generated by the business may accelerate the
need to hard surface Route 836.
Fire Marshall: This additional use within the existing building
would have no significant impact on fire and rescue resources.
C.U.P. approved by Fire and Rescue Department.
Inspections Department• The animal hospital and office would
not require a change of use permit. The existing Certificate of
Occupancy was Issued for use Group B (Business) and would cover
this use. Therefore no additional comment is required , however
building permits shall be required if any renovations to the
structure occur.
Health Department• See attached letter dated November 10, 1994
Winchester Regional Airport• See attached letter dated December
8, 1994
Page 2
Planning Department: A veterinary office, clinic or hospital is
a permitted use in the RA zoning district with an approved
conditional use permit. This proposed use is to be co -located
with the existing dog kennel that is operated by the Andersons
under CUP # 001-86 that was updated in 1990 due to expansion of
their facility. Since this veterinary service is being operated
in conjunction with the kennel, it does not appear that this use
will create any additional impacts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR January 4, 1994: Approval with the
following conditions:
1. Any expansion of facilities to accommodate this use will
require revision of the original kennel site plan.
2. Any expansion of buildings or facilities beyond that
approved by the original site plan will also require a new or
ammended conditional use permit.
Lord Fairfax Health District
150 Commercial Street
, o P. O. Box 2056
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(703) 722-3401 FAX 703 722-3475
Counties of Clarke. Frederick, Page_ Shenandoah. Warren, and City of Winchester
November 10, 1994
Mark.Anderson and James Casey
667 Walter's Mill Lane
Stephenson, Va. 22656
Re: Request for Conditional Use Comments; Veterinarian hospital and office
TM* 44 -A -100A
Dear Sirs,
The health department has no objection to your proposal as long as there is no
increase in water use. According to Mrs. Anderson today, there are presently
two full-time employees, two part- time employees, and Dr. Casey who is present
one or two days per week. Based on 25 gal per day per eight employee hours which
is the average derived from the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations, the
design water use is 200 gallons per day based on peak flow. According to the
files, the septic system serving the establishment was designed for 218 gallons
per day.
The subject septic system appeared to be functioning properly today as determined
by a walkover only.
Sincerely,
Doug Dailey,
Environmental Health Specialist Senior
DD/DD
VIDH)f11 IRUNIA
)WAR Iml
Hf AITH�T
P-rrr nn.I Y.r1 Y,,i,r fn v,.�rn.nrrir
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT COMMENTS
Winchester Regional. Airport
Attn: Executive Director
491 Airport Road
Winchester, Virginia 22602
(703) 662-2422
The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of
Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form.
Applicant's name, address and phone number:
Name of evelopment and/or description of the request:
Location:
Winchester Regional Airports Comments:
Airport Signature and Date: 419
(NOTICE TO AIRPORT. * PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO APPLICANT.)
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as
possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also,
please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form.
Please consider the following comments when reviewing this
Request for Master Development Plan:
The Developer should be familiar with and be required to
comply with the provisions of the Frederick County Airport Zoning
District (AP -1) and Airport Support Area (ASA) described in the
Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The developer should
also be familiar with the provisions and requirements of the
following codes:
Title 15.1 Code of Virginia, Section 489 (Purpose of Zoning
Ordinances) and Section 491.02 (Airport Safety Zoning).
Title 5.1-25.1 Code of Virginia (Permits Required for Erection of
Certain structures.)
As Winchester Regional Airport expands services and
operations, noise associated with such expansion is very likely
to increase. The Airport Support Area established by the
Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is designed to
discourage residential development in the vicinity of the airport
to preclude citizen concerns for noise created by aircraft
operating on, to and from Winchester Regional Airport.
If the developer is planning residential development
adjacent to the ASA or under a flight path used regularly by
aircraft outside of the ASA as they arrive or depart the Airport,
he should be either required or encouraged to insulate all
habitable structures for noise and be required to specifically
address, in the property Covenants and Easements, existing
airport related noise and the probability of increased noise as
airport operations expand.
i
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
r
:-APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Applicant. (The.applicant if the owner other)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
So nr
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
G7
' ` rn.� Q 'c rl Yl _e
4. The property has a road frontage of X9 ' feet
depth of feet and consists of
(Please be exact)
kz
r
a n a /7ZeU,,
acres.
5. The property is owned by k,[m� f as
evidenced by deed from ,� recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. � on page _7 3 ,�— as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
CM
14 -Digit Property Identification No.
Magisterial District �'�'
Current Zoning C�%Cc : ir't. -II ('
7. Adjoining Property:
USE
North
East Fii ic'f'tl 14 A�y
South = L v
West�L 1f20
ZONING
1'
•r
8. The type of use pro sed is (consult with the Plan
before completing)
9. It is proposed that
!hatj the following buildings will be
/�
constructed: l.lJ , /�//., A . . A A _ , . 1 _ ,7
ng Dept.
Ci -
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, rear and
in front of (also across street from) the property where
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER.
NAME
12. Additional comments, if any: .
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
Sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address
Owners' Telephone No.
�- 7- %s ) Z
7- ovY2 7 /76) Lc
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
FINA L PLA T
PAGE I OF 3
MINOR RURAL SUBDIVISION
MARK D. & CHERYL L. ANDERSON
VA. ROUTE 836
STONEWALL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY
TRACT NUMBER:
VIRGINIA
44 A 100
11 OCTOBER 1991
ZONED RA
b wR/c
F
� /R fycO
Sl TE
�
RP4 r• 2,000'
4RKOtys
X37 S
�.
STEP
yFNsoh
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE:
THIS DIVISION, AS IT APPEARS ON THIS PLAT, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND N ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE
UNDERSIGNED OWNER, PROPRIETOR OR TRUSTEE
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE LAND IN THIS SUBDIVISION IS A PORTION OF THE LAND
CONVEYED TO MARK D. ANDERSON AND CHERYL L. ANDERSON BY DEED DATED 24 JUNE
1986 IN DEED BOOK 619, PAGE 735.
i X,
WINCHES TER-FREDERICK COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
FREDERICK COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPROVABLE SEWEGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
AVAILABLE FOR EACH SITE.
/0 -22 -q
l
CHAPTNr I81-ARTICLE .}SECTION 3-6-2.2
� ALT.0
L. ALLEN EBERT
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
L ALLEN EBERT
/.to_
35 W. BOSCAWEN ST.
(LICENSE) Nm
1498
WAUESTER VA 22601-4740
11Np
703 667 3233
SURvtl
PAGE 2 OF 3
T
" �u N 1 \ \p0
\.R v I
lc 1 O
I o 1
N
I O -IRON PIN (SET)
I
1 z 1
I � I
N I
�.L I w I
, 20• I
SFMFN� NP _I.Q z 1
I
a 1 OTHER LAND U
MJ ' 1 0
H
N S 16' 56' 33" W - 530.85'
I
Q
15' B.R.L.
co 75.0' S.000
w fol
J
? I- 0) '
>a wa: I F� ACRES -E-----
0 Fm m cD I KENNEL ,
O
N a- Z /
_ 1 I io
3 Q
D �3 , Q In =
r
W m o
L) (V
W
to
co d m I N
G V o
m Z
Q. m IT B.R.L.
O
m J m N N 16° 56' 33" E- 597.86'
`^ w r` o OTHER LAND
in
J } A 27.303 ACRES
G m I USE: AGRICULTURAL
v
20' WATER EASEMENT: 30' RIGHT -OF -WA f:
H -J: :J IG' 56' 33" E - 138.75'
J -K: N 71' 56' 36" y' - 65.92'
K -L: S 55' 16' 31" W - 106.28'
L -M: S 47' 08' 43" E - 102.23'
DRAINFIELD EASEMENT
H -N:
N 16' 56' 33" E - 148.75'
N -P:
N 71. 56' 36" W - 70.69'
P -Q:
N 18' 03' 24" E - 28.25'
Q -R:
N 76' 17' 52" W - 178.51'
R -S:
N 89' 30' 42" W - 132.20'
S -T:
N 00' 45' 19"• W - 46.47'
T -U:
N 88' 27' 21- E - 121.70'
U- V:
S 76' 17' 52" E - 274.27'
V -N'
S 16. 56' 33" W - 80.45'
A -B:
N 68' 41' 12" W - 161.60'
B -C:
N 36 23' 50" E - 56.75'
C -D:
N 36' 23' 50" E - 61.28'
D -E:
N 01. 58' 42" E - 466.53'
E -U:
N 78' 36' 35" W - 144.32'
C -F: N 71' 30' 38" W - 155.89'
F -G: N 67' 33' 54" W - 88.27'
G -H: S 16' 56' 33" W - 48.98'
ril
i�i.I}� U
L AUEN E13� �
(LICENSE) No.
1498
a
r�_t'fi crfnVF���.
PAGE 3 OF 3
The accompanying Plat represents a Boundary Survey of a
portion of the Land conveyed to Mark D. Anderson and Cheryl L.
Anderson by Deed dated 24 June 1986 in Deed Book 619, Page
735. The said Land lies at the end of a 25 ft. Right of Way
leading Northeastwardly from Va. Route 836, in Stonewall
District, Frederick County, Virginia:
Beginning at an iron pin in the Northeastern Line of the
Bragg Land, a corner to the Retained Partion; thence with the
said Line and the Northeastern Line of the Kelley Land, S 68`
41' 12" E - 387.06 ft. to an iron pin, a corner to the said
Retained Portion; thence with the three following Lines of the
said Other Land, N 16' 56' 33" E - 597.86 ft. to an iron pin;
thence N 78' 36' 35" W - 387.75 ft, to an iron pin; thence
S 16' 56' 33' W - 530.85 ft. to the beginning.
Containing: 5.000 Acres
Surveyed: 11 October 1991
x/L ALLEV,0 EB�RJ
(LICE.NSSE) No.
1498
��'b crTuVEXD�
99
O Q /
/
97 '
100
2 pts.
i
:f
Rt. gas 100
i
i
10-
CO 101
0 103A
R,4,ILROAD i
`
a H� -per 7
109
1 1 4 306\'3 108
�e J
kale in Feet
0 300 600 900~�`
1
290-435
R
2 Pts.
Location Map
for
PIN:
44-A-100
Mark Anderson
& James Casey
CUP
# 0121-94
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directoe
RE: Informal Discussion with Linden Unger Regarding a Possible Rezoning
DATE: December 15, 1994
Attached is a letter from Mr. Unger requesting time on the Commission's agenda to discuss
the possibility of rezoning a small parcel of land (roughly one and a third acres) located on
the south side of Route 522 North from B-2 (Business General) to RP (Residential
Performance).
The property is located along the 522 North corridor in an area that is currently a mixture
of business and residential uses. The general area would be expected to gradually transition
to a predominantly business corridor. The parcel itself is low and during periods of heavy
rain, is at least partially under standing water.
A vicinity map is attached.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
KCT/rsa
Attachment
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
�i+sern� 4/ /994`
40f;p
,cl 1,44L >�L
Pj��2�Yicu ,2. �.�L�
72, �o
s�
I
0
c
a S3 c`�es,3o� 80
S ss � � 87 v� 70 �
8 5ee�0 82 � 703
7(5 See 69 ,2 2, 83 0
S9 68 s,ss 702 I
7 22
07 0
700 v
Oryx,
62 �p� 66 8S 999 723 ° (n
P V V
53--- �
227-102
rF �O 9) 724
y4 v CO
C)
Cry 5 6
6'1
6,3 5
Sccle in Feet
0 300 600
6 \3
60
Ime
60A
Location
Map for Linden Unger
PIN:
53-A-55
Potential
Rezoning
&
53-A-62
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
it�ntocrn� ."
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Ritter Request for Sewer Extension
DATE: December 19, 1994
Attached is information pertaining to the request of Mr. Ritter for approval to extend sewer
to his MH -1 (Mobile Home) property located on Route 636.
Commission members will recall an informal discussion was held with Mr. Ritter in
November at which time the Commission passed the request to the Comprehensive Plans
and Programs Committee for a recommendation. The Committee discussed the request at
their meeting of December 12. The Committee recommended against permitting the
extension.
In order to permit the request, either the Sewer and Water Service Area or the Urban
Development Area would have to be extended to encompass the Ritter property. The
Committee felt that to do so would set a precedent that would open the door to numerous
requests for similarly situated properties to request sewer extensions.
In conjunction with this discussion, the Committee also felt it would be unwise to extend the
Sewer and Water Service Area south of Route 277. Extending the SWSA to encompass the
single family residential properties was originally being considered as part of the Fulton
request. The Committee felt that drawing a distinction between serving the single family
properties and not the MH -1 property would be difficult and that it would be best to make
no adjustment to either the SWSA or the UDA in this area, at this time.
Please let me know if there are any questions concerning this matter.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
��r�
� �
'`\
:�:
`�'� --
' _
1
- ��
J ,• �
�tf =�
_'
;�,
_�
r'�
__ y
/G� ' plc ' �% /
� � G'Gd Lc �/[� 62�-�0�-
��'n-�� -
'yam ��c� �� �� � ���
.�� � � � ��
-,e...�.� �.��
�� �� r
1 h
rQa oba�^ "1' N
' Z 116
a
117A ¢
5
117
0 q
Z20-284
(NU
�j SP1°sh' f' 1438
765c0v Q
Sae 1 98 41
1430 \ /199X98 X90 '8g
v �a 19 3
! ! p
143 O o ° X07 194
_ sae 196
! 4 ac s8 l\(vvjl
10
Oma'
OP o � 20� 2j<3
217
G° 'S
c� °a
by
,°c 210
9 10
209 � 11 12
ACeCQr to,,,211 1 a
57 212 2
6 8
°
215 5
7
213 214 (2 sea 217
3 pts.
11 IA
227
I Scale in Feet
0 300 600 9C
Location Map for PIN: 86—A-248
Pioneer Trailer Park
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703 / 678-0682
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Informal Discussion Concerning Potential B-3 Rezoning on Route 7 for
Mobile Home Sales
DATE: December 12, 1994
Attached is a letter from a Mr. John Tauber stating his interest in rezoning a parcel
containing roughly 3 acres from B-2 (Business General) to B-3 (Industrial Transition) for
the purpose of establishing a mobile home sales business. The parcel which Mr. Tauber is
interested in is located in front of the recently renovated Franklin Mobile Home Park. The
property to the east is zoned RP (Residential Performance), property to the west is zoned
M-2 (Industrial General). The property across Route 7 is zoned RP and B-2.
Attached is a plat of the parcel and a vicinity map.
If there are any questions concerning this item, please give me a call.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
10401 Lanham Severn Road
Tauber Office Building, Suite 101
Lanham, Maryland 20706
(301) 464-5446 (703)869-7250
PROFESSIONAL
MOBILE HOME BROKERS INC.
P.O. Box 814
5332 Main Street
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
_ ✓ i- 1
s 1i
NOVEMBER 23,1994 F ,
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WINCHESTER , VA.
GENTLEMEN ,
REPOT DEPOT, INC.
Rt. 5 Boz 629 Kelly Island Road
Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401
1-800--12t-RFPs
1
1
.,K tip•:
-. •'k Mil � . 1 �, `5 �r
I WOULD APPRECIATE THE OPPURTUNITY TO DICUSS THE FEASIBILITY
OF REZONING THE MILDRED COLE PROPERTY ON RT, % FROM THE CURRENT
B-2 ZONE TO 3-3 ZONE TO ACCOMIDATE THE USE OF A MANUFACTURED HOME
DEALERSHIP .
RESPECTFULLY,
ER
T Olticrs�
rairlaz,Va,
Rririatura,tr.Va.
Lteshurg,Va,
Rnckville.Md.
Patron Hams Rust & Assonates. pc V irvinia Reach.ve.
Enrnneen Survew.s. Cbnnr+s. Lxft&w. oe A,&.,
107f—,hK—t5e.etSwf 100P.O Bay 3,549 Chant111v,Va.
�— To
WWinchesrer,Va.
W�'v�yE TE.P .ncnener. V.ae.. ^1' 601
703. 27.4721
—�— CONC. 1-70.v,
EA21 JS�A/NES/nJG. aQ �' ��o = ry 7 ;
7es
NN S2L'7030 ¢ �J
BOUNDA
ON THE P
MILDRE
S1UdF,S• AIJ, FIAG
FTtfUF.R.I.(T, C
7�9x 1::>12c% . -3 lf- / J LAU2A /�GFfir/L�QN(�
2.7775 ac. t / 3 4./333
�2LL �3
. 30 ll.o.w ,ti y
2301461
v L F7U2A
GOAe:. w.oLL L,.er / ,gyp �1• /Yl e F,p2jgi�/C)
ZG2/57
y� \ 7; :,'o en 34,9
0 0
� s r/aQusNE
d y Pc.Qr /LE
D�e-D Davtr
tee,
i2ESiDvE v F 9`Q
49.F, -Z) Pact Z �• . ,U 0 NOVz3?BF
S�.C7�i` S/13,dX20W
3,91 16.9z
� 7-j • /d •off W �S�'o , �%
r 9S.lJ •,� 'sr�•.
�sy .s�vuow \
�1
sem- Z ele
�VO4
V31A
O
'T 31 B
3
23
Q
22�
4
_4A L
C"�"0-•..
1
� 00",
i
7 2a8 ass 28
91(D A
B CO
8 27\� CC)
A2 (� /
26 v �
A
\ 9 A 1 2s
l 265794
A3 21-
A
20 Q 22
1 6 1 11 Awa 19 21
18
17
12 16
C
2 3 i 5 23-3.0 14 15
40
1U�
CD
N
22
32A ao
36 j A 8C
3 � � 32 3.4
/ 7
3 `" 2 3
2 s "4 Ct 6 33 52
(Z) a 3Slq 54 s4
9
�. %� Ip S6 s<q
C�2 '39,4S8.
73 74< 47 60 113A
a
75
4,3 � 62
17 76 81
4S 64
79 18
U 47 a 66 7
6 I
139
� 2j 2p a
2 3 0 22
ti I
2 4' 26 53
2g 28 SS ; ;f
30 S7
Sg
S6Q S6E s, s3
Scale in Feet
56 ANDOAH I 0 300 600
H i LLS
Location Map fol PIN; 55-A-34
Possible Rezoning for John Tauber
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission Members
Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director
Proposed 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
December 21, 1994
As most Commissioners are aware, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee
evaluates departmental CIP project requests beginning in the fall of each year. The
Committee formulates the requested projects in rank order based on established evaluation
criteria.
At their December 12, 1994, meeting, the Committee finalized their recommendation for the
1995-96 CIP. Materials related to the preparation of this recommendation along with the
draft are attached.
The following documents are attached:
► Cost Summary for the draft 1995-96 CIP.
► Project Summary for the draft 1995-96 CIP. This includes a brief outline of the
project included in last year's CIP, and those included in the draft 1995-96 CIP.
► The CIP Project Request Evaluation format and results of the evaluation.
► The 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) as recommended by the
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee at their meeting on December 12,
1994.
Please contact myself or Eric Lawrence if you have any questions.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
COST SUMMARY
The proposed CIP contains 28 projects with a total cost of $69,982,146. This figure includes
the estimated debt service on all projects except the County Offices. The total does not
include Sanitation Authority or Landfill projects which are paid for out of user fees and are
made a part of the CIP in the form of addendum. Of this amount, $45,219,806 would come
from the County's General Fund over a five year period (not including debt service). As
presently proposed, projects scheduled in the first year (1995-96 fiscal year) would have a
total County cost of $10,008,083 including estimated debt service for all projects with the
exception of the County Offices.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The draft 1995-96 CIP consists of 28 project requests from the County's various
departments. Of these project requests, only two are new to the CIP. The remaining 26
were included in the 1994-95 CIP. The two new projects are: a Building/Grounds Addition
request from the School Board, and a Landfill Development Phase 1, Cell D request from
the Public Works Department.
Listed below are the modifications that each county department has made in their project
requests for inclusion in the 1995-96 CIP. Please note: the projects which were included in
the 1994-95 CIP and again in the 1995-96 CIP are not discussed.
School Board Projects
Projects no longer included in the CIP:
1) Senseny Road Elementary School Roof Replacement -- Completed.
2) Frederick County Middle School Window Replacement and Air
Conditioning -- Completed.
3) James Wood Middle School Partial Air Conditioning -- Completed.
4) James Wood Middle School Partial Roof Replacement -- Completed.
Projects which are new to the CIP:
1) Buildings and Grounds Department Addition/Renovations. This project was
not included in the 1994-95 CIP.
Parks and Recreation Projects
All project requests for the 1994-95 CIP will be included in the 1995-96 CIP.
Handley Library
All project requests for the 1994-95 CIP will be included in the 1995-96 CIP.
Airport Authority
Projects no longer included in the CIP:
1) Taxiway Relocation -- Completed.
2) Construct T -Hanger Taxiway -- Completed.
Sanitation Authority Projects
Projects no longer included in the CIP:
1) Expansion of Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant -- Under
Construction. Anticipated completion date: October 1996.
2) Frederick County Water Treatment Plant -- Complete.
3) Water Storage Tank at Authority Headquarters Site -- Completed.
4) Water Transmission Lines
a) Route 522 Transmission Line I -- Completed.
b) Route 522 Transmission Line I1 -- Completed.
c) Route 50 Connector Line -- Completed.
d) Stonewall Industrial Park / Lee Avenue Water Loop -- Completed.
Landfill and Compactors Projects
Projects no longer included in the CIP:
1) Landfill Closure, Existing 20 Acre Site -- Completed.
2) Landfill Development, 10 Acres -- Completed.
Projects which are new to the CIP:
1) Landfill Development, Phase I, Cell. This project was not included in the
1994-95 CIP.
FREDERICK COUNTY
CAPITAL 11"PROVEMENT PROGRANEWNG
PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESS
The attached forms were used to evaluate requested Capital Improvement Projects. The first form
contains a list of seven evaluation criteria. Each criterion has been assigned a weight which reflects
its relative importance when compared to the other criterion.
The second form was used to record the rating which was given to each project. The projects are listed
by department. Each project was reviewed against all of the criterion and was given a rating between
zero and four. A score of four being the highest, indicating that the project most appropriately fits the
criterion. The rating was then entered in the corresponding cell. The numeric figure to the right of
the rating is the result of the rating being multiplied by the weight and the resulting score entered in this
same cell. The scores which were given to the projects for each of the seven criteria were then totaled
across the table and the total entered in the far right hand column. Only the resulting scores after the
ranking is multiplied by the weight was totaled. These total scores were then used to assist in
ranking projects. The higher the score, the greater the priority the project is given.
Below is an example showing the total score derived for a hypothetical request for a new elementary
school. The weights corresponding to the criteria are shown beneath the criterion. The ranldng given
to projects for each criterion has been entered to the Ieft in the corresponding cell. The score (the
rating multiplied by the weight) has then been entered to the right of the cell. The total score of 39 was
arrived at by adding up the scores (the number to -the right of each cell) for each individual criterion.
FREDERICK COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
EVALUATION FORM
LISTED BY DEPARTMENT; IN ORDER OF DEPARTMENT PRIORITY
CRITERION I Conform to Health, Legally Distribute Economic Related Public
and Comp. Plan safety, Required Services Impact to Other Support I TOTAL
WEIGHT
OL
'SYSTEiYi
iElementary School
3
2/6 39
FREDERICK COUNTY
CAPITAL EVOROVEXIENT PROGRAMMING
PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
TOPIC
DESCRIPTION WEIGHT
1 Conformance to
Does the Project conform to, or contribute
Comprehensive Plan
to the attainment of goals/objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan? Is the Project 3
consistent with established policies?
2 Public Health, Safety or
Does the Project improve conditions
Welfare
affecting health safety or welfare? Does it 4
eliminate a clear health or safety risk?
3 Legal Requirement
Is the Project required in order to meet a
State or Federal mandate or some other 4
legal requirement?
4 Equitable Distribution of
Does the Project meet a special need of
Services
some segment of the population that has
been identified as needing assistance? 2
Would the Project provide equivalent
services to a population group that is
currently under served relative to other
areas of the county?
act
Is the Project essential to, or would it
encourage some form of economic
development? Would the Project improve 2
the tax base, reduce operating expenses,
VCoordination
produce revenue, or otherwise have a
positive effect on the local economy?
with other
Is the Project necessary for the successful
completion of other projects? Is the Project 3
part of a larger project?
7 Public Support
Are county residents fully informed and
supportive of the proposed Project? 3
1995 FREDERICK COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
EVALUATION FORM
LISTED BY DEPARTMENT; IN ORDER OF DEPARTMENT PRIORITY
CRITERION I Conform to Health. Legally Distribute Economic Related Public
and Comp. Plan Safety, Required Services Impact to Other support I TOTAL
Welfare
Projects
WEIGHT 3 4 4 2 2 3 3
PUBLIC.WORKSS
Closure of Cells A,B, Phase I
4/12.
4/16
4/16
3/6
1/2
3/9
/ 9
0 / 0
6I
Landf ll Development Phr 1l Cell D
4116
4/ 16
4116
214
:/23/9
112-119
216
2 /
0/ 0
Sg
Landfill Development Phase II, Cell A
4 / 12
4 / 16
4 / 16
2/4
1/2
3 / 9
.
0/0
59
Ne}r Compactor. Site:,::,4
: 2
L1
<27 8
011}:::
3 /'6'::::
B ildlra� Grou nds Addition
f:3.
13
34
ewLibrary 2/6 0/0 0/0 4/>8 ;1/2 0/0 3/9 1 25
ew Element ?
Sensen Elem.:A/C and Ret
3/9
2/8
0/0
-:0
2/4
1/2
113
3/9
35
ovattons
Roblrlson Elem. A/C and Renovations
216
2 /
2/'8:
/:0,
2.f. 4 .
1:/2:
1::f 3
31; -
_3/9
32
.,
�Cand Renovat>ons
2/4
1/2
I/3
32
B ildlra� Grou nds Addition
216
2/ 8
.. O t O
2/ 4
I l-2
1! 3.:
3 ,l 9
32
New High School -
1/3
1/.!
0/0
1/2
1/2
0/0
1/3
...
14
Transportation Garage
3 /'9
8
0 f U
1d2
1f3
II3
2Q
5
Av1or;Hoover CulIer._.u a laement
2/6
2/8
0/0
1/2
2/4
1/3
1/3
26
.
z
2�8
070.0/
0
Ot a
0/ 0
216,
.20::
PARKS:AND 'RECREAT ION;
Bikeway System
Tennis/BaskcibaIl Complex - CB
4/12
2/8
0/0
-`
1/2
1/2
2/6
2/6
36
...
Open Play Area at Water Tower C$
3 /
114.
Of -0
3/6
1:42.
2/6
1'/3
:30
Softball Com lea - SP
p
3/9
1/4
0/0
2/4
1/ 2
2/ 6
2/ 6
31
.
BaII Field Renovations
3/9..
0/0
010
1/2
112
2/6
2/:6
25
:.-.
Open P1av Area - C$
2/6
0/0
0/0
1/2
1/2
2/6
2/6
...'
22
Support Facilities - CB
..
02
2f6,
216
33 .
Soccer Complex3/
2/6
2/8
0/0
1/2
/ 0
2/6
1 / 3
25
Tennis/PicnicArea - SP
9
0/0
O t o
3/ 6
I t 2
2/6
216
23
Shelter, Stage SeatingCB
-
3/9
0/0
0/0
1/2
0/0
2/6
2/6
23
Park Land
0/0
0/0
3/6
3f6
2'f6
216
_33
Maintenance Compound -
p
3/9
1/3
0/0
0/0
4/8
1/2
1/3
2/6
28
Exercise/Open Play - CB
1/4
0/0
0/0
1/2
1/3
1/3
15
Amphitheater
3/9
1/4
0/0
2/4
1/2
2/6
2/6
31
Nature Center
3t9
0/'0
0/0
3/6
3/6
0/0
2/6
27
3/9
0/0
0/0
4/8
0/0
1/3
2/6
26
AIRPORT
Land Acquisition
2/6
1/4
41
2/ 8
1/2
3/6
3/9
2/ 6
Aircraft Storage Hanger
2/6
0/0
0//0
4/8
4/8
2/6
3/ 9
29
Upgradc Terminal Apron Lights
2/ 6
2/8
0/ 0
3/ 6
3/6
1/3
1/6
29
FREDERICK COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
DRAFT
Capital Improvements Plan
1995-96
Fiscal Year
As Recommended by the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................... .. 1
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 2
School Board 2
Parks and Recreation ...................................... 2
County Administration ................................ 3
Handley Library ............................. ... . ..... 3
Airport Authority .................................... • 3
Sanitation Authority .................................... 4
Landfill and Compactor .................................... 4
DRAFT 1995-96 CIP.......................................... 5
PROJECT FUNDING ........ ....... ........... 6
APPENDIX: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
7
.............................
Frederick County Sanitation Authority ......... ....... , ..
7
Water Transmission Lines
Water and Sewer Lines
............. .......... . . . . . . . 7
Frederick
County Public Works Department .......................
Closure of Cells A and B, Phase I ...................
9
.. , ..
Landfill Development: Phase I, Cell D ......................
9
Landfill Development: Phase 1I, Cell A ......................
9
New Compactor Site ................................
10
Construction of Leachate Treatment Facility ..................
10
Composting/Waste Inspection Facility ......................
10
Expansion of Citizen's Convenience Area
11
Frederick County Public Schools .............................
12
Eastern Frederick County New Elementary School ..............
12
Senseny Road Elementary School Air Conditioning/Renovations ......
12
Robinson Elementary School Air Conditioning/Renovations .........
12
Stonewall Elementary School Air Conditioning/Renovations ........
13
Buildings and Grounds Department Additions/ Renovations .........
13
Frederick County High School III ........................
13
New School Transportation Garage .......................
14
Robert E. Aylor Middle School and Bass Hoover Elementary School
Chiller Replacement ............................
14
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department .... ....
15
Bicycle Facility ...................................
15
Tennis/Basketball Complex
.......... . . : . . .. . . . .
15
Open Play Area at Water Tower .........................
15
Softball Complex
..................................
16
Baseball Field Renovations
16
..........................
Open Play Area
................................ .
Support Facilities
16
................................ .
Soccer Complex
17
................................
Tennis/Picnic Area
17
................................
Shelter/Stage Seating
17
............................. .
Park
18
Maintenance
8
Compound and Office .......
Exercise/Open Play/Picnic Complex
18
.......................
Amphitheater
18
....................... ..........
19
Nature Center/Picnic Area
....................
Handley Regional Library
19
...............................
Frederick
20
County Library .............................
20
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FREDERICK COUNTY
1995-96
INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation of plans for capital outlays to
the local planning commissions. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule
for major capital expenditures for the County for the ensuing five years.
The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plan as they are completed or
as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the County Board of Supervisors in
preparation of the County budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital
expenditures, the County must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform to
the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The annual review process begins with the submission of capital expenditure requests from
County departments and citizens in the fall of the year. These requests are evaluated by the
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee, a subcommittee of the Planning
Commission, using a list of seven evaluation criteria. Each criterion is assigned a weight
which reflects the relative importance when compared to the other criterion. The Committee
then meets with representatives of departments making expenditure requests and determines a
recommended priority and amount for the various requests. This recommendation is passed
to the Planning Commission which in turn makes a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
The CIP is strictly advisory. Once adopted, project priorities may change throughout the
year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be
funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes
increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
2
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
1. School Board Projects
The renovation of the James Wood Middle School air conditioning, in addition to its roof
replacement, were completed during the summer of 1994. The replacement of the Senseny
Road Elementary School roof was completed during the 1994-95 fiscal year. Renovations to
Frederick County Middle School's windows, and the installation of air conditioning were
completed during the 1994-95 fiscal year.
Some renovation of Stonewall and Robinson elementary schools is proposed. Air
conditioning is proposed for Senseny Road and Stonewall elementary schools. Proposed
renovations at Robinson Elementary School include the installation of air conditioning and
the replacement of large windows with new, more efficient units, and the upgrading of
electrical capacity. All of these projects have been included in past year CIPs, but were
delayed due to budget considerations.
Funding is being requested for a new transportation garage. The project involves the
purchase of land, construction of a new garage, bus parking, and refueling areas. The
existing maintenance facility has reached the point where it is difficult to house all of the
school system's buses and still provide service to an increasing number of County vehicles
from other departments, in particular the Sheriff's Office, as well as vehicles from Planning,
Building, and Parks and Recreation. As a result of recommendations in the recently
completed management study, additional planning for this project has been put on hold until
a detailed analysis of the County's transportation needs can be completed.
It is possible that the site recently purchased along Route 7 could serve as the location for a
new 585 student elementary school, a 1250 student high school, and a new transportation
garage. Factors affecting this will be the availability of funds, the rate of increase in school
enrollment, and the haste with which a new transportation facility becomes necessary.
2. Parks and Recreation Projects
Master Plans for the Clearbrook and Sherando parks were adopted in 1987, which describe a
complete program for park improvements. These Master Plans reflect the recommendations
of County residents and conforms to national standards as outlined in the Virginia Outdoor
Plan.
Several projects are planned in and around Sherando Park. The County was awarded an
ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Program grant to build a Bikeway System. This 2.45
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
3
mile facility will serve several residential areas in southern Frederick County. The bicycle
path has been designed to link the residential developments and park land on the north of
Route 277 with Sherando Park and Sherando High School. In addition to other
improvements at Sherando Park, two projects are planned that will be used by Sherando
High School, the proposed soccer complex and softball complex.
Several projects are planned for Clearbrook Park including a tennis/basketball facility, an
open play area, support facilities that include landscaping and renovation of the existing
entrance road, an exercise/picnic area, and a shelter with a sound stage and seating.
In an effort to reduce the gap in provision of services to the western portion of the County,
the Parks and Recreation Department is proposing to purchase park land in western Frederick
County that will be the site of a nature center/picnic area.
3. County Administration
The County's Administrative offices have been relocated to the Courthouse Associates
building at 107 North Kent Street. This temporary relocation was necessary in order for the
County to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the decision to remain
within the City of Winchester's Downtown Historic District has been made, a permanent
location for the County's Administrative offices has not been determined.
4. Handley Library
As part of a master plan prepared for the Handley Library by a library consultanting firm, it
was recommended that a library be built in southeastern Frederick County. A library in this
area would enable the Handley Library to provide service to the growing population in
southern Frederick County. The Library would need a minimum of 4.5 acres of land. A
34,000 square foot building is proposed which could be expanded, in stages, ultimately to
50,000 square feet.
5. Airport Authority
An updated master plan for the Winchester Regional Airport was adopted in December of
1993. This plan contains recommendations regarding capital improvements to the airport in
order to meet federal guidelines for airports the size of the Winchester Regional Airport and
to provide better service to airport users.
Construction is underway for two projects included in the 1994-95 Capital Improvements
Plan. These projects, Taxiway Relocation and T Hanger Taxiway, were required in order
for the airport to meet federal design standards.
rrederick County 1995-96 Capital lmprovements Plan
4
The projects that the Airport Authority are proposing for the immediate future include a land
acquisition of 34 acres which is needed to enhance aircraft operational safety during approach
to the airport, construction of a 16 -unit T -Hanger, and upgrading the terminal apron lights.
6. Sanitation Authority Projects
The Sanitation Authority is proposing two projects. They include four Water Transmission
Lines and two Water and Sewer Lines. The Water Transmission lines will include providing
service to Miller Heights, Bufflick Heights, Westview subdivision, and Route 50/Victory
Road. The Water and Sewer Line project will provide service to a portion of Route 522
South and Boundary Lane. The Sanitation Authority Projects will not be funded directly
through the CIP. These projects receive their funding through user fees.
7. Landfill and Compactor Projects
The Public Works Department is proposing seven projects. They include:
Closure of Cells A and B, Phase I
Landfill Development - Cell D, Phase I
Landfill Development - Cell A, Phase II
New Compactor Site
Leachate Treatment Facility
New Composting/Waste Inspection Facility
Expansion of Citizen's Convenience Area
The Landfill project and the two cell development projects are all projects that the Landfill is
required to undertake in order to comply with regulations imposed by the Department of
Environmental Quality. The New Compactor Site project will be funded through the CIP.
Funding for the six remaining Landfill projects are provided through the Landfill Enterprise
Fund.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
FREDERICK _JUNTY, VIRGINIA
DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
1995-96
Priority Priority
Projects
1995-96
II I
Airport Land Acquisition
18,7505-9
t
Bikeway System
29,000
I
I
New Elementary. School
6,500,000
New Compactor Site
60,000
6
Open Play Area - CD
0
765,00(
10
Shelter, Stage Seating - CA
2
Senseny Flem. A/C and Renovations
500,000
If 3
Robinson Elem. A/C and Renovations
500,000
4
'
Stonewall Elem. and Renovations
A/C
500,000
i1 t► 3
Open Play Area at Water Tower - CB
188,0(0
1 I 13
12
Exercise/Open Play/Picnic Area -CB
281,000
2
13
Tennis/DasketbaIt Complex - 613
505 ,000
6
�14
New Iligh School
206,006
i 2
Aircraft Storage Ilanger
1 S 3
16
1)pgrade Terminal Apron Lights
1,200
11
Park Land
17 i 14
Amphitheater
1,000,006
1S 7
Transportation Garage
'19 Is
Nature Center
[,000,00(►
~)o I
New Library
1 4
Softball Complex - SI'
455,00()
r2 7
Support Facilities - CB
h3 8
Soccer Complex
188,000
n4 9
Tennis/Picnic Area - SP
I i 5
Ball Field Renovations
281,000
L�6 8
L 7
Aylor, I louver Chiller Replacement
12,500,000505,000
12
Maintenance Compound
505,000
h8 5
- ---
Buildings/Grounds Addition
---
200.000
"TOTALS
COUNTY
1996-97
CONTRIBUTION
Interest From Any
Total County
Total Project
1997-98
1998-99
1999-2000 Debt Service
Contributions
Costs
e
,750
0
765,00(
700,000
z9;ao0
4,866,674
12,066,674
7,200,00(
206,000-:60,..
�Qo
6Q,00(
X03,000
206 ,000
206,006
500,000
.
3.63,0.60
303,OOC
500,00.6
01,562
1,601,562
1,000,006
500,000
661,562::.
61,562
1,601,562
[,000,00(►
601,562
1,601,562
-
188,000
188,000
281,000
281,000
1,000,000
12 500,000
12,500,000505,000
16,886,449
505,000
250,000
42,886,449
26,000,000
250,000
250,000
1.09 0
3 0
1200
6,000c
-,
663,000
1.093'000
1,093,000
663,000
663,00050(),0()01,.675,00(?
912,647
-
2,481,647
1,575,000
465,856
418,000
418,000
418,000
465,856
7,658,556
90,000
.:::
455,000
455,000
604,000
403,000
-
90060
-
578,000
1,007,000
1,007,000
199,000
578,000
578,000
275,000
199,000
199,000
159,000
171,572
446,572
275,000
159,000
159,000
120,312
320,312
200,000
9,737,950 5,324,000 14,859,000 14,217,856 1,081,000
A Fanul lundmg Guru Federal and Sun grans B = Pan�al fwldmg Gum Federal Aupcul Inlp/uvemeut Prvgran (FATE) and Slate Commnwealdl Aupun Fund (SCAF) g�„�
C � Panlal Rul.lulg Gum Sun C oumWmwald1 Aur -n fiord (SCAF) glans (1 - Panlal buldmg GUnI S181C Stalls and I.Cal g111s
19,895,666 69,982,146 53,184,556
Ce
PROTECT FUNDING
► The projects included in the 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan have a total cost of
$53,184,556, of which Frederick County will contribute $45,219,806 over the next
five year period of 1995-2000. This total does not include the interest from any debt
service. By adding the projected debt service of $24,564,540, the total cost of the
approved projects comes to $77,749,096.
► Proposed funding for the new County Offices will be obtained either through a moral
obligation bond or general obligation bond.
► School projects are funded through loans from the Virginia Public School Authority.
► Sanitation Authority projects will be funded by the Sanitation Authority working
capital funds and Virginia Resource Authority Revenue Bonds.
► Landfill projects are funded by retained funds generated by the landfill fees and
coordinated by the Landfill Enterprise Fund.
► Funding for Parks and Recreation projects will come from the unreserved fund
balance of the County. The Bicycle Facility project will be funded through a
Recreational Access Fund grant, an ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Program
grant, and a 20% match from the general fund. In order to carry out the remaining
Parks and Recreation projects in this plan, the Parks and Recreation Commission
needs to actively seek private sources of funding or cooperation.
► Funding for a Frederick County Library will involve a contribution from the County
general fund, a bond, donation of land, and substantial fund raising efforts by the
Library Board.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
7
APPENDIX: PROTECT DESCRIPTIONS
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Sewer and Water Project Priority List
PROJECT I Water Transmission Lines
A) Miller Heights Water Distribution Line
Description: Install 3,800 linear feet of eight -inch water line.
Estimated Costs: $72,000
Construction Schedule: Contingent on availability of funds
B) Bufflick Heights Water Distribution Line
Description: Install 2,000 linear feet of eight -inch water line.
Estimated Cost: $60,000
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -95.
C) Westview Water Distribution Line
Description: Install 1,100 linear feet of eight -inch water line.
Estimated Cost: $33,000
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -95.
D) Route 50 - Victory Road Water Loop
Description: Install 5,500 linear feet of twelve -inch water main.
Estimated Costs: $140,000
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -95.
PROJECT 2 Water and Sewer Lines
A) Route 522 South Sewer
Description: Installation of approximately 14,300 linear feet of
eight -inch pipe, 11,200 linear feet of twelve -inch pipe, 1,200
linear feet of six-inch force main, and 50 manholes.
Estimated Cost: $72,000
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -96.
B) Boundary Lane Water and Sewer Line
Description: Install 1,400 linear feet of eight -inch water line
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
E:3
and 1,100 linear feet of eight -inch sewer line.
Estimated Cost: Water $45,4000
Sewer $47,750
Total $92,250
Construction Schedule: Contingent on availability of funds.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
Z
Frederick County Public Works Department
Landfill Project List
PROJECT 1 Closure of Cells A and B, Phase I
Description: This project encompasses the closure of Cells A and B,
Phase I. This closure will be performed in accordance with the details
and guidelines set forth in Permit #529.
Capital Cost: $1,400,000
Justification: Required by the Department of Environmental Quality.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -96 and may carry over into FY -
97.
PROJECT 2 Landfill Development: Phase I, Cell D
Description: This project includes the development of approximately
five acres of sanitary landfill space as outlined in permit #529, Phase I
- Cell D.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: Required by the Department of Environmental Quality.
The project will serve the citizens of Frederick and Clarke Counties as
well as the City of Winchester for approximately three to four years.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -95 and may carry over into FY -
96.
PROJECT 3 Landfill Development: Phase II, Cell A
Description: This project includes the development of approximately
five acres of sanitary landfill space as outlined in permit #529.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: Required by the Department of Environmental Quality.
The project will serve the citizens of Frederick and Clarke Counties as
well as the City of Winchester for approximately three to four years.
Construction Schedule: Projected to begin in FY -98.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
10
PROJECT 4 New Compactor Site
Description: This project includes the construction of a compactor site
in the vicinity of the intersection of Middle Road and Marlboro Road to
replace the container site on Middle Road. The development of a
compactor site includes site grading, paving, construction of a concrete
pad and a concrete retaining wall, and the installation of a trash
compactor. In addition, it is anticipated that the site will be fenced and
landscaped.
Capital Cost: $51,000
Justification: This existing container site off of Middle Road is
continuously being overrun causing an excessive amount of litter on
adjacent property. This site is also experiencing a great amount of
illegal dumping from contractors and citizens outside of Frederick
County. The installation of a compactor site would afford the Landfill
the opportunity to monitor the inflow of refuse, control illegal dumping
and eliminate the unnecessary litter.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY -95.
PROJECT 5 Construction of Leachate Treatment Facility
Description: This project includes the construction of a treatment
facility to treat and discharge leachate which is currently being
collected and transported to Parkins Mill Treatment Plant for treatment.
The facility would include an additional holding pond for biological
treatment as well as a chemical processing station prior to discharge
into the Opequon.
Capital Cost: $150,000
Justification: The landfill is currently collecting the leachate in a 1.5
million gallon lined lagoon. The leachate is then pumped and hauled to
Parkins Mills Treatment Plant for treatment. The projected economic
analysis (25 year life) indicates that a treatment facility would provide a
more economical treatment alternative after leachate production reaches
a constant 3,000 gallons per day.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY -97.
PROJECT 6 Composting/ Waste Inspection Facility
Description: This project will include the construction of a pole
building, approximately 60'x 120' in dimension to accommodate sludge
rreaenck County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
11
composting and required random waste inspections. It is anticipated
that the project will include a wood pole building, a 6 -inch concrete
floor and an underlying leachate collection system. The project will be
constructed on landfill property to take advantage of the existing
leachate collection system.
Capital Cost: $85,000
Justification: This project is considered necessary for the following
reasons:
1) Composting sewage sludge would provide an economical
source of needed topsoil used to cover closure areas. The
landfill is currently maintaining 60 acres of closed landfill and
anticipates an additional 90 acres over the life of the new
expansion. Composting sewage sludge will assist us in meeting
recycling mandates imposed by the Department of
Environmental Quality.
2) the proposed composting facility can also be used for the
random waste inspections required by the landfill's new permit.
Construction Schedule: Completion FY -96
PROJECT 7 Expansion of Citizen's Convenience Area
Description: This project will include an expansion area to
accommodate an additional 50 cubic yard open top container. This
expansion will include an extension of the existing retaining wall and
concrete slab, relocation of existing fencing, minor grading and paving.
Capital Cost: $25,000
Justification: This expansion is needed to accommodate the increased
influx of bulky items such as furniture, construction debris, and other
wood products. Currently, there is a 50 cubic yard container which is
continuously being overrun on weekends and holidays.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY -96.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
12
Frederick County Public Schools
Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1 Eastern Frederick County New Elementary School
Description: The construction of an 585 student capacity elementary
school in eastern Frederick County will be needed to provide increased
school capacity due to continued growth in the elementary school-age
population. In addition, this facility would be helpful in eliminating the
need for the current and any additional modular classrooms that may be
needed at Stonewall and Senseny Road Elementary Schools through the
adjustment of attendance zone boundaries.
Capital Cost: $7,200,000
Justification: The proposed elementary school in eastern Frederick
County will serve a student population of 585 students from
kindergarten through the fifth grade.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -95 and complete in FY -96.
PRIORITY 2 Senseny Road Elementary School Air Conditioning/Renovations
Description: This project involves the installation of air conditioning
at Senseny Road Elementary School.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: This project will serve a total of 595 students in grade
K-5.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -95 and complete in FY -96.
PRIORITY 3 Robinson Elementary School Air Conditioning/Renovations
Description: This project involves the installation of air conditioning
at Robinson Elementary School which currently serves 256 students in
grades K-5. Robinson Elementary School opened for students in the
fall of 1957 on an 11.5 acre site in a building containing 20,524 square
feet of space.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: This project will serve a total of 595 students in grades
K-5.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -95 and complete in FY -96.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
13
PRIORITY 4 Stonewall Elementary School Air Conditioning/Renovations
Description: The installation of air conditioning at Stonewall
Elementary School is designed to provide the students and staff with an
improved learning environment. Stonewall was originally opened for
students in 1941 and has served the needs of the Clearbrook community
both as a high school and elementary school since that time. The
school has undergone several renovations over the years and currently
contains a total of 34,451 sq. ft. on a 10 acre site. Stonewall has a
current student population of 400 students and makes use of 7 modular
classrooms..
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: The air conditioning of Stonewall Elementary School
will serve students in grades K-5.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -95 and complete in FY -96.
PRIORITY 5 Buildings and Grounds Department Additions/Renovations
Description: The renovation/addition of the Buildings and Grounds
Department is needed to provide space for a central warehouse for
storage of materials and supplies, additional work area for maintenance
and repair of equipment, and a training area for custodial/ maintenance
employees. An addition of a Butler -type building of 50' X 100' is
proposed.
Capital Cost: $200,000
Justification: The Buildings and Grounds Department provides
maintenance and repair services for all county school facilities which
serve over 9,000 students.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -95.
PRIORITY 6 Frederick County High School III
Description: This project involves the construction of a grade 9-12
high school with a capacity for 1250 students. The projected high
school will be constructed on a portion of the land recently purchased
by the school board on the north side of Route 7 East.
Capital Cost: $26,000,000
Justification: Frederick High School 111 would serve the educational
needs of a 1250 student population.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -96 and complete in FY -98.
vreaericx county 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
14
PRIORITY 7 New School Transportation Garage
Description: This project involves the construction of a new
transportation garage, bus parking, and refueling areas.
Capital Cost: $1,575,000
Justification: The construction of a new transportation garage will
serve to provide maintenance and repair services to a growing fleet of
over 100 school buses and numerous cars and trucks of the school
division and other county agencies.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -96 and complete in FY -97.
PRIORITY 8 Robert E. Aylor Middle School and Bass Hoover Elementary School
Chiller Replacement
Description: This project involves the replacement of the aging chiller
systems. The chillers should be replaced because the current
refrigerate (R-11) will no longer be manufactured and it will be more
expensive to convert the existing chillers to handle the new required
refrigerant than to replace these units.
Capital Cost: $275,000
Justification: The new chillers will be more efficient which will
result in a significant energy savings to the school division.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -96.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
15
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department
Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1 Bicycle Facility
Description: A 2.45 mile bicycle facility to serve several residential
areas in southern Frederick County. This bicycle facility has been
designed to link the developments and parks land on the north side of
Rt. 277 with Sherando Park and the high school on the south side of
Rt. 277.
Capital Cost: $65,000
Justification: The initial trail development will provide a direct benefit
for the 642 planned or completed housing units, with the potential
future expansion of the trail system impacting over 3,000 housing units.
Construction Schedule: Begin in FY -95.
PRIORITY 2 Tennis/ Basketball Complex
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Clearbrook Park. It includes: 8 lighted
tennis courts, 2 racquetball courts, 2 basketball courts, picnic shelter,
and parking.
Capital Cost: $505,000
Justification: Because Clearbrook Park is a regional facility, these
facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there are
no tennis, racquetball, or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park area.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -95.
PRIORITY 3 Open Play Area at Water Tower
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Clearbrook Park. It includes: parking
spaces, picnic shelter, 6 horseshoe pits, croquet, shuffleboard,
volleyball court, and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $188,000
Justification: This play area will be available to all Frederick County
residents and reduce the gap between the number of existing play areas
and the number needed to meet minimum standards.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
16
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -95.
PRIORITY 4 Softball Complex
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Sherando Park facilities. It includes: 2
lighted softball fields, parking, and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $455,000
Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for
the entire Frederick County area. In addition to its use as a
recreational facility, it will be used by the Frederick County school
system.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -95.
PRIORITY 5 Baseball Field Renovations
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Sherando Park facilities. It includes:
renovation to 4 existing ball fields, renovation of the existing
restrooms, access walks, and access road.
Capital Cost: $199,000
Justification: This facility, presently serving as both youth baseball and
adult softball fields, would be used by the "Little League" programs
within the Sherando Park Service area. In addition to this use as a
recreational facility, the athletic complex will also be used by the
Frederick County school system.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -96.
PRIORITY 6 Open Play Area
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Clearbrook Park facilities. it includes:
parking, the renovation of 5 picnic shelters, access paths, and
landscaping.
Capital Cost: $206,000
Justification: To provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook
Park service area.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -96.
Frederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
17
PRIORITY 7 Support Facilities
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Clearbrook Park facilities. It includes:
landscaping and the renovation of the exiting entrance road at the ball
field complex.
Capital Cost: $90,000
Justification: This facility would be used by the residents of Frederick
County.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -96.
PRIORITY 8 Soccer Complex
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Sherando Park facilities. It includes: 3
soccer fields, access paths, restrooms, plaza, 2 picnic shelters,
landscaping, and the lighting of 5 fields.
Capital Cost: $1,007,000
Justification: This facility would be used by the entire Frederick
County area. In addition to its use as a recreational facility, the facility
will also be used by the Frederick County school system.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -95.
PRIORITY 9 Tennis/Picnic Area
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Sherando Park facilities. It includes: 3 tennis
courts, 4 racquetball, restrooms, 4 picnic shelters, access road and
paths.
Capital Cost: $578,000
Justification: These facilities would be used by the Sherando Park
service area and the southwestern part of Frederick County. Although
tennis courts are being included at Sherando High School, the
Commission feels that it is important to include three tennis courts on
park property for the general public use while school courts are being
used for school activities.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -97.
1-rederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
NO
PRIORITY 10 Shelter/Stage Seating
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Clearbrook Park facilities. It includes:
renovate existing restrooms, access paths, shelter/stage, and lake
renovations.
Capital Cost: $303,000
Justification: This facility would be used by the entire Winchester -
Frederick County area.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -97.
PRIORITY 11 Park Land
Description: Park land acquisition.
Capital Cost: $1,093,000
Justification: This project would be used by the entire Frederick
County area.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -98.
PRIORITY 12 Maintenance Compound and Office
Description: This project is necessary to create an office and storage
sheds in Sherando Park.
Capital Cost: $159,000
Justification: This facility will enable the county to maintain its
equipment and facilities in a more responsible and effective manner.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -99.
PRIORITY 13 Exercise/Open Play/Picnic Complex
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Clearbrook Park facilities. It includes: an
exercise area, 2 sand volleyball courts, 4 picnic shelters, a shelter deck,
a mega playground, and access paths.
Capital Cost: $281,000
Justification: This project would be used by the residents of Frederick
County.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -99.
rrederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
PRIORITY 14 Amphitheater
Description: This project consists of an assortment of athletic facilities
to compliment the existing Sherando Park facilities. It includes: an
amphitheater, lighting, sound system, access paths, parking, and
landscaping.
Capital Cost: $663,000
Justification: This facility would be used by the entire Winchester -
Frederick County area. It would be available to Sherando High School
for their use.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -99.
PRIORITY 15 Nature Center/Picnic Area
Description: This project will be located in western Frederick County
and will consist of picnic shelters, play areas, a volleyball court, a
nature center, nature trails, and parking.
Capital Cost: 418,000
Justification: This facility will be used by all of Frederick County.
Development of these facilities will be contingent upon the acquisition
of park land in western Frederick County.
Construction Schedule: Begin and complete in FY -99.
t-recienck County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
20
Handley Regional Library
Project List
PROJECT Frederick County Library
Description: A library in Frederick County will enable the Handley
Regional Library to provide service to the growing population in
Southern Frederick County and to provide adequate books, services,
and seating for the population served by the regional system. On a lot
of 7 acres, the building will be 34,000 square feet and will be expanded
in stages ultimately up to 50,000 square feet. The consulting firm
hired by the Handley Library Board to provide a master plan for the
library through the year 2010 has estimated the construction costs, not
including land or library materials costs but including furniture and
equipment, would cost approximately $4,659,000. Books and other
library materials for an adequate opening day collection of around
80,000 items would cost almost $3,000,000. The recommended site of
the Frederick County Library is in the area east of Interstate 81 and
between Route 522 and Route 277.
Capital Cost: $465,856
Justification: The Handley Library currently has over 14,000
registered users from Frederick County. This number would rise
dramatically with a new, convenient location.
Construction Schedule: Begin planning and design activities in 1998-
1999, site preparation and construction for 1999-2000, and opening day
2000-2001.
hYederick County 1995-96 Capital Improvements Plan
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 /665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner H 1�j
RE: Agricultural And Forestal District Informal Discussion
DATE: December 21, 1994
On May 17, 1994, property owners along Double Church Road (Route 641) and Refuge Church
Road (Route 639) met with Gary DeOms and staff to begin the process necessary to create a new
agricultural and forestal district in Frederick County. Staff would like an opportunity to discuss
the progress to date, as well as the opportunity to receive input from the Planning Commission
prior to public hearings.
Enclosed is information regarding the proposed agricultural and forestal districts. This
information includes excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan, procedures for the creation of
agricultural and forestal districts, and tables that provide data for each proposed district. Staff
will provide a graphics display at the Planning Commission meeting that depicts both districts.
Please review this information and advise staff of any comments or concerns regarding this
issue.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD
& REFUGE CHURCH ROAD
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT
Rural ,areas
GOAL - Maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County's economy.
GOAL - Maintain the rural character of areas otctside of the Urban Development ,Area.
GOAL - Insure that land development activuies in the rural areas are of appropriate quality.
GOAL - Protect the rural environment
Stmtew 1 - Include the promotion and support of local agriculture in general economic
development policies and activities.
Strate¢v 2 - Promote the inclusion of additional land in Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
St—rategy 3 - Avoid land uses in important agricultural areas that will conflict with agriculture,
but allow uses which are appropriate in rural areas and which support agriculture.
Strati 4 - Monitor regulations and performance standards in order to insure that they
protect the rural environment, maintain the character of rural areas and provide rural
development of appropriate quality.
Stratew S - An effort should be made to blend new construction in with existing
surroundings and minimize negative impacts on the environment.
Strategy 6 - Carrying capacity
pursued. should be a major factor in determining density. Methods of
determining and protecting groundwater quality in the rural areas should be examined and
SIELtegy 7 - Regulations should be developed which are aimed at protecting agricultural
operations and preserving prime agricultural land.
Strateav 1 - Develop review procedures that insure conformance to the stated intent of
subdivision regulations.
Implementation Methods:
1. Provide information on procedures for establishing Agricultural and Forestal
Districts and actively promote the inclusion of additional bona fide agricultural and
forestal land in districts.
2. Avoid large, high density developments in important agricultural areas to avoid
conflicts with agriculture.
75
3. Allow a variety of support activities for agriculture in the rural areas.
4. Continue to allow new rural housing developments in a variety of types of
locations. Continue to review ordinances to insure that appropriate types of rural
housing developments are allowed.
5. Review ordinances to insure that adequate performance standards are provided
in relation to rural development to protect important environmental features,
including prime agricultural soils.
6. Review rural residential development regulations to insure that adequate sewage
disposal methods are employed. Develop better policies concerning rural sewage
disposal.
7. Develop information on the location of unique and significant environmental and
agricultural areas.
S. Develop information on the rural environment in order to estimate the carrying
capacity of rural areas. Define the density and types of development allowed based
on carrying capacity and the characteristics of the particular areas.
9. Review ordinances to insure that performance standards are present that will
result in development of appropriate quality.
10. Rural business uses should be developed in conformance with performance
standards similar to those used for urban businesses. Review the ordinances to
insure proper standards.
11- Where possible, natural features of a site should be used to conceal the
development from the view of passing motorists and adjoining properties. Homes
should be constructed in wooded areas or behind areas of higher elevation rather
than on top of prominent knolls.
12. Significant modification to the e-Ndsting terrain should be avoided.
13. No more access points should be permitted to any subdivision than are needed
to insure safe ingress and e;ress of residents and emergency vehicles. A single access
is preferred where possible.
14. Entrance roads or driveways should be placed along the edge of fields or in
wooded areas when possible rather than in highly visible open areas.
15. Within e,-dsting wooded areas, the amount of land cleared for individual house
sites, driveways, etc. should be kept to a minimum.
16. Impacts on emsting vegetation should be considered when sites are graded.
M
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
Reasons To Create:
1) Qualify for land use -value taxes.
2) To avoid nuisance ordinance restrictions on agricultural or forestal practices.
3) To protect land from development.
Requirements To Create:
1) Core area of at least 200 acres is required in one parcel or in the combination of
contiguous parcels.
2) Satellite parcels that are within one mile of core perimeter may be part of the agricultural
district.
3) Parcels that are contiguous to the satellite parcels may be part of the agricultural district.
4) An application (provided by the Extension Service) needs to be complete and
accompanied by support data.
5) The Board of Supervisors (BOS) will create an Advisory Committee after receipt of the
completed application. This committee is comprised of four local persons involved in
agricultural or forestal production, four local persons not involved in agricultural or
forestal production, the local property assessment officer, and a BOS member. (The
.process must not exceed 180 days from filing the application to the final decision of the
BOS)
6) The BOS must enact an ordinance that specifies the time period that the agricultural
district is valid, as well as provide for any conditions placed on the district by the BOS.
7) Additional land (no minimum acreage) may be added to the district once it has been
established. The additional acreage must go through the same application and public
process.
Withdrawal Of Land Within An Agricultural District:
1) Landowners can provide written notice to the BOS prior to the creation of the district or
during review of the existing district.
2) If a landowner dies, the heirs may provide written notice to the BOS within two years
of the death.
NOTE: Land withdrawal from an established agricultural district is subject to possible
roll -back taxes, and to local laws that were prohibited by the creation of the
agricultural district. Withdrawal of a parcel does not affect the status of the
remainder of the agricultural district.
PROPOSED DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICT PARTICIPANTS
The following tables provide information regarding the location, ownership, acreage, and
deed description for parcels proposed for a new agricultural and forestal district within
Frederick County, Virginia. These parcels are located in the southeastern portion of
Frederick County, with road frontage along Double Church Road (Route 641),
Canterburg Road (Route 636), Grim Road (Route 640), Wise Mill Lane (Route 737),
and Salem Church Road (Route 735). The parcels proposed for inclusion within the
proposed Double Church Road Agricultural and Forestal District were suggested by the
property owners in the described area during a meeting held at the Stelzl residence on
May 17, 1994. Additional parcels have been incorporated into the proposed agricultural
district through periodic updates made by Dr. Gary DeOms of the Frederick County
Extension Service.
DOUBLE CHURCH AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT
--F
MAP #
-----T
PROPERTY OWNER
ACRES
DEED BK/PG #
85-A-126
Clayton & Crystal Hartley, Jr.
22.42
820/129
85 -A -126A
David & Meridee Powers 23.70
817/1097
85-A-127
John C. Bradburne, Jr. 87.19
370/105
85 -A -131A
Louis & Betty Stelzl 24.74
000/000
85-A-139
Emmett L. Scothorn 105.63
615/729
85-A-140
Charles W. Racey 132.15
586/820
86 -A -21A
Herbert Painter 6.34
599/211
86-A-23
Herbert Painter 0.25
343/374
86-A-25
Louis & Betty Stelzl 150.50
331/515
86-A-27
Arthur B. Ritenour, Jr. 10.50
331/517
86-A-32
Stuart & Anna Madagan 88.11
747/036
86-A-33
Louis & Betty Stelzl 0.12
331/515
86-A-34
John & Linda Delean 5.00
792/1627
86-A-35
Louis & betty Stelzl 111.0
745/913
86-A-36
Orville & Jean Hylton 90.00
505/682
86-A-39
Floyd & Kay Rosenberger
22.00 1 736/754
86-A-43
Bruce E. Welch
20.00 749/730
86-A-46
86-A-70
86 -A -72B
Herbert M. Painter
Kenneth E. Wymer
Kenneth E. Wymer
29.00 611/539
28.98 658/405
10.02 568/458
86-A-228
Howard & Jewell White
91.50 000/000
86 -A -230A
Jeffrey & Joseph Gore
0.97 771/1242
86 -A -230B
Jeffrey M. Gore
16.03 590/449
86-A-231
Fred B. Gore
2.5 000/000
86-A-232
Howard & Jewell White
66.22 468/000
86-A-239
Donald & Mary Welch
9.39 356/257
86 -A -239A
Dnnnlrl Rr Mary wal"In
c nn A.,.1 1c^fc
86 -A-241
--- - -- - ---� ..
William H. Ireland
I .O.VV
10.59
�jV/-) I-
665/081
86-A-242
William H. Ireland
3.00
000/000
86 -A -244B
Donald & Mary Welch
5.17
000/000
86-A-245
John & Virginia Booth
0.5
000/000
86-A-250
86-A-254
Howard & Jewell White
Howard & Jewell White
9.00
5.00
468/000
747/025
86-A-264
Arthur B. Ritenour, Jr.
0.50
000/000
86 -A -264A
Arthur B. Ritenour, Jr.
0.53
483/336
86-A-266
Nelson R. Clevenger
74.26
000/000
86 -A -266B
James L. Greene
5.5
000/000
93 -A -14A
Donald & Mary Welch
20.0
000/000
93-A-79
Stuart & Anna Madagan
112.0
000/000
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM TABLES
Number of Parcels Number of Owners Total Acreage
39 1 21 1 1,405.31
PROPOSED REFUGE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICT PARTICIPANTS
The following tables provide information regarding the location, ownership, acreage, and
deed description for parcels proposed for a new agricultural and forestal district within
Frederick County, Virginia. These parcels are located in the southeastern portion of
Frederick County, with road frontage along Refuge Church Road (Route 640). The
parcels proposed for inclusion within the proposed Refuge Church Road Agricultural
and Forestal District were suggested by the property owners in the described area during
a meeting held at the Stelzl residence on May 17, 1994. Additional parcels have been
incorporated into the proposed agricultural district through periodic updates made by Dr.
Gary DeOms of the Frederick County Extension Service.
REFUGE CHURCH ROAD AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT
MAP #
PROPERTY OWNER
ACRES
DEED BK/PG #
92-A-73
Lawrence W. Fagg
71.00
340/267
93-A-16
James L. Greene
100.00
720/193
93-A-17
Dale & Cynthia Ballenger
39.97
807/1540
93-A-1713
James L. Greene
71.83
805/567
93-A-22
Raymond E. Conner
26.00
536/321
93-A-23
Raymond E. Conner
32.00
536/321
93-A-38
David L. Hartley
2.0
611/045
93-A-48
David L. Hartley
2.5
611/045
93-A-49
David L. Hartley
10.0
611/045
93-2-4
Rnvmnnri F (�nnnnr
o nn
/''
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM TABLES
Number of Parcels Number of Owners Total Acreage
10 1 5 1 363.30
Part I - Summary of AFDA
9/27/90
INTRODUCTION
The Virginia General Assembly has created a process for "...a mutual
undertaking by landowners and local governments to protect and enhance
agricultural and forestal land as ... an economic and environmental resource...".
This statement of purpose is found in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act
(AFDA), enacted in 1977 as Chapter 36 of the Code of Virginia and amended several
times, most recently in 1989.
The act gives local governments authority --upon landowners, voluntary
application --to establish agricultural districts, forestal districts, and
agricultural and forestal districts (all hereafter referred to as "districts").
As of September 1990, 165 districts existed, covering nearly 560,000 acres in 19
countiesl. Of this number, 70% (116) are found in just 7 counties: Accomack,
Albemarle, Culpeper, James -City, Loudoun, Montgomery, and New hent. The
remaining districts are primarily in northern Piedmont and the Tidewater regions.
Although local conditions differ, landowners form districts for three main
reasons: 1) to qualify land for use -value taxation; 2) to avoid nuisance
ordinance restrictions on agricultural or forestal practices; and 3) to protect
land from governmental or other actions that encourage development. T h i s
article summarizes the AFDA, found in Sections 15.1-1507 through 15.1-1513 of the
Code. Applicable sections are referenced beside the topic headings.
1Thirty districts, covering over 3,000 acres, have been established in Fairfax
County under a separate chapter of the Code, Chapter 36.1.
1
APPLICATION RE UIREMENTS--315.1-1509
Landowners whose combined holdings total at least 200 acres in one or more
contiguous parcels may apply to have a district established. After the 200 -acre
core is determined, other land may be added to the proposal, including other
contiguous parcels, parcels within a mile of the core perimeter, and parcels
contiguous to those within a mile of the perimeter. on application forms
provided by the local governing body, applicants must provide specific
information: the acreage each landowner is proposing for the district; each
landowner's name, address, and witnessed signature; proposed conditions within
the district; a proposed period (from 4 to 10 years) before review of the
district; and the district's proposed location and total acreage. A U. S.
Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic map showing the district's boundaries,
and a general highway map showing the district's location, must also accompany
the application; in practice, however, local government staff may prepare these
maps. An application fee (of up to $300) is required. The application is filed
with the local governing board or council (hereafter referred to as "Board").
ADVISORY COMMITTEE--SI5.1-1509
The Board, upon receipt of a locality's first application, must appoint an
Advisory Committee . The committee must comprise four landowners engaged in
agricultural or forestal production, four other landowners in the locality, the
locality's chief property assessment officer, and a Board member. The
committee's function is to advise the Board and the Planning Commission on
...the nature of farming and of forestry and agricultural and forestry resources
within the district and their relation to the entire locality."
ON
MA ON OF DISTRICTS AND PERIODIC REVIEW --S15 1-2511
Creation. Figure 1 illustrates the district creation process. Note
especially the following points: 1) landowners begin the process; 2) the Planning
Commission, with advice from the Advisory Committee, may recommend modifications
to the landowners' proposal; 3) the Board may approve, modify, or deny the
proposal (landowners must receive written notification of modifications); 4) the
process, from filing of the application to final decision, must not exceed 180
days; and 5) it is the Board's action that actually creates the district.
To create a district, the Board must enact an ordinance that stipulates the
conditions to be in effect within the district and specifies the period (from 4
to 10 years) until the first review. The conditions may be any that the Board
deems appropriate, including restrictions on non-agricultural and non -forestal
development. After a district is created, land may be added by the same process
used for creation; there is no minimum acreage for an addition.
Review. The Board must review a district, and any subsequent additions,
at the time specified in the creation ordinance. At this time, the Board may
modify the district, terminate it, or allow it to continue as it is. Periodic
reviews are required as long as the district exists.
EFFECTS OF 0ISTRICTS---515.1-1512
The AFDA directly affects district land in two ways.
1) District land automatically qualifies for use -value taxation. This is
important in jurisdictions without a separate use -value ordinance. The land
actually receives this benefit, however, only after the local assessing officer
makes the land eligible for such taxation by approving an application filed by
the landowner.
3
2) Restraints are imposed on government. Local governments may not
restrict farming or forestry, except to protect public health or safety. Local
comprehensive plans and zoning/subdivision ordinances apply to district land only
to the extent that they do not conflict with either the conditions of the
district or the purposes of the APDA. Local plans, ordinances, and decisions
affecting land adiacent to a district must take into account both the district
and the AFDA. State agencies must modify regulations and procedures to encourage
farming and forestry within districts. Land acquisition by agencies, political
subdivisions, or public service corporations (including acquisition by eminent
domain) must be reviewed by the local Board, if the land in question exceeds 10
acres from the district or one acre from any one district farm or forestry
operation. The same requirement applies to expenditure of public funds for non-
farm facilities. (Although the Board must publicly reviews such acquisitions or
expenditures, it has no power, short of litigation, to prevent them.) Finally,
no special purpose assessments or taxes (i_e., for water, sewer, or electricity)
may be imposed an land used for agricultural or forestal production within a
district, except on lots of one-half acre or less around dwellings or non --farm
structures.
WITHDRAWAL OF LAND FROM A DISTRICT --S15 1-1513
Before a proposed district is created, and during the review of an existing
district, a landowner may withdraw his land simply by filing a written notice
with the Board. Also, when a landowner dies, the heirs may withdraw the land by
written notice filed within two years of the date of death. At other times,
landowners must submit to the Board a written request, stating "good and
reasonable cause" for the withdrawal. Following review and a public hearing, the
4
Board may approve or deny the request. Denials may be appealed to the circuit
court.
Land withdrawn from a district is subject both to possible roll -back taxes,
according to use -value taxation law, and to any local laws previously prohibited
by the existence of the district. Withdrawal of a parcel does not, however,
affect the status of the rest of the district.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (P.
O. Box 1163, Richmond, 23209), or your local Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service office (phone numbers are listed with those for local agencies), for a
COPY of the AFDA and related material. Contact your local government
adminstration or planning department for information about use of the AFDA in
your locality.
6
Index - trial 2 - 10/11/90
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Conunission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II
RE: 1995 ISTEA Enhancement Proposal
DATE: December 20, 1994
The City of Winchester and Frederick County plan to submit an application for a joint ISTEA
Enhancement project to assist with the acquisition of the remainder of the historic Kernstown
Battlefield site. This ISTEA Enhancement project is a continuance of the grant application
which was successful in securing funds to acquire a portion of the Kernstown Battlefield.
Complete acquisition of the Kernstown Battlefield site would be the first step toward the creation
of a Civil War Battlefield Network in the City of Winchester and Frederick County. The
Kemstown Battlefields will play a significant role in the interpretation of Civil war history for
the area.
The City of Winchester and Frederick County acquired an option to purchase the 342 acre Grim
Farm (site of the First and Second Battles of Kernstown). This option, which expires December
1, 1996 provides a two year window to secure the financing necessary to acquire this site. The
Virginia Department of Transportation awarded $1,000,000 of ISTEA Enhancement funds last
year for this project. It is estimated that another $1,200,000 is needed to complete this property
acquisition.
Staff believes that it is extremely important to define the intermodal tour network for this year's
application. This intermodal network will provide the elements necessary to incorporate a
complete transportation system. This includes motorized, non -motorized, and pedestrian systems
throughout the network. Transportation modes that are being considered include private
automotive, group bus tour, public transportation, bicycle, pedestrian, and rail. The delineation
of the intermodal tour network will be the most significant revision to the current application.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
Page -2-
ISTEA Memo
December 20, 1994
Included with this memorandum is a copy of the project description section from last year's
application. The components of this section that will be revised include the Multi-
Governmental/Private Focus, the Intermodal Tour Network, the Hearing/Endorsements, and the
Project Costs.
Staff will present additional information during the January 4, 1995 Planning Commission
meeting. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider this proposal and forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The 1995 ISTEA Enhancement Proposal for the
City of Winchester and Frederick County will be scheduled for public hearing during the January
11, 1995 Board of Supervisors meeting.
Winchester - Frederick County
Civil War Tour Network - Phase I
ISTEA Enhancement Application Form
I. Applicant: City of Winchester and Frederick County, Virginia
2. Responsible Persons: Robert Watkins, Frederick County Director of Planning, (703) 665-
5651; Timothy A. Youmans, City of Winchester Director of Planning (703) 667-1815; June M.
Wilmot, Director of Economic Development (703) 665-0973
3. Enhancement Activities:
Prima Activities(Phase I
2. Acquisition of Scenic Easements and Scenic or Historic Sites
5. Historic Preservation
SecondaU Activities Phase II
1. Provision of Facilities for Bicycles and Pedestrians
4. Landscaping and Other Scenic Beautification
9. Archaeological Planning and Research
4. Project Location and Description: The Civil War Battlefield Tour Network - Phase I
project is part of a larger multi -phase project to establish a Civil War Battlefield Tour Network
in the City of Winchester and Frederick County, and is critical to the full implementation of a
Shenandoah Valley Civil War National Battlefield Park. Phase I is to acquire the Grim Farm
site which represents a central portion of the First Kernstown Battlefield and the Second
Kernstown Battlefield. This site is located in both the City of Winchester and Frederick County,
just west of Valley Pike (Route 11 South of Winchester). The Kernstown Battlefields have road
frontage along Middle Road (Route 628) and are accessible from Interstate 81 and Route 11 by
way of Opequon Church Lane (Route 706). Opequon Church Lane will be the primary entrance
to the Kernstown Battlefields which will also promote tourism for the historic Opequon Church.
The Grim Farm (site of the Kernstown Battlefields) is currently open farm and orchard land with
historic and agricultural structures on the site. The current owners divided the property with
the intent to sell the site for development.
The City and County acquired an option to purchase the 342 acre Grim Farm site. This option
grants the City of Winchester and Frederick County a two (2) year period in which to secure
additional funding to complete the purchase of the Kemstown Battlefields. This option was
secured for $500,000 and expires on December 1, 1996.
The acquisition of the Kernstown Battlefields is notable, in that it demonstrates multi -
governmental focus, historic significance, and intermodal access.
Multi-Governmental/Private Focus:
United States Congress - Legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives
by Congressman Frank Wolf and in the Senate by Senator John Warner to establish the
Shenandoah Valley Civil War National Battlefield Park. The Kernstown Battlefields and
other historically significant battlefield sites will be included as components of the
Shenandoah Valley Civil War National Battlefield Park.
National Park Service (NPS) - The 1991 NPS Shenandoah Valley Civil War Battlefield
Study has been concluded and states that the Kemstown Battlefields are defined as having
a high level of threat with a substantial loss of resources over the next ten (10) years.
The NPS Battlefield Protection Partnership Program has awarded a grant to support the
planning process involved with the overall battlefield network system, as well as for the
preservation of the Kernstown Battlefields.
State of Virginia - The State of Virginia has incorporated the Kernstown Battlefields into
the Virginia Outdoor Plan. It is intended that these battlefields, as well as others, be part
of a regional park system.
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission - Grants have been received to identify a
regional battlefield tour network. The Kernstown Battlefields and other significant
battlefield sites within the City of Winchester and Frederick County have been included
as a part of this overall network.
Winchester/Frederick County Battlefield Task Force - Established to supervise the
preparation of the plan for the battlefield tour system network. This plan identifies
critical battlefield sites and significant historical sites within the City of Winchester and
Frederick County. The plan has been designed to develop and implement a Civil War
Battlefield Tour Network that will establish the preservation of historic sites, promote
education, and provide intermodal transportation opportunities for visitors to the sites.
Preservation of Historic Winchester/Kurtz Cultural Center - The "Shenandoah Valley:
Crossroads of the Civil War" information center was opened in 1993. This information
center recorded over 15,000 visitors during the first year of operation.
2
Historic Significance:
The three Civil War campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley were of major significance to the
history of our Nation. A Battlefield Tour Network in the Shenandoah Valley will provide an
important educational benefit to travelers. The existing Grim Farm was the location of the
major battle actions of the Second Battle of Kernstown and played a critical role in the First
Battle of Kernstown. The Kernstown Battlefields were determined to be eligible for the National
Register in September 1990, as recommended by the Shenandoah Valley Civil War Foundation.
This large, pristine, rural site is located in the midst of the community's urban area. It, along
with the historic downtown area, will provide the hub of the Civil War Battlefield Tour
Network. The Kernstown Battlefields will play a significant role in the interpretation of Civil
War history for the Winchester/Frederick County area.
Intermodal Tour Network:
Private Automobile Mode - Existing collector and local roads enable easy travel to all
critical battlefield sites and all significant historical sites following historical routes. The
Civil War Battlefield Tour Network will be an enhancement to travel on Interstate 81,
Route 11 and other highways in our region.
Group Bus Tour Mode - Bus tours have been developed by the Winchester -Frederick
County Chamber of Commerce using a Civil War theme. The sites identified within the
Civil War Battlefield Tour Network would be easily accessible as a part of these tours.
City Bus Mode - Bus transit exists within the City of Winchester. The existing travel
routes provide access to many of the battlefield sites and to the historical downtown area
of the City of Winchester.
Bicycle Mode - A plan has been developed that provides an interconnection of all critical
and historically significant sites identified within the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network.
The plan utilizes existing rides specified in the Winchester Wheelmen's Ride Booklet and
routes identified by the Winchester/Frederick County Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Pedestrian Mode - Public access will be provided onto all battlefield sites within the Civil
War Battlefield Tour Network. Walking tours currently exist for the historic downtown
area of the City of Winchester. It is anticipated that a visitors center will be located at
the end of Opequon Church Lane. This will provide an ideal viewing location for the
Kernstown Battlefields. Pedestrian access will be provided from the visitors center onto
the site using historic lanes that exist on the Grim Farm. The goal will be to provide
good public access while maintaining the pristine condition of the site.
Rail Mode - Excursions along existing rail lines which interconnect the Civil War
Battlefield Tour Network sites are being pursued as a future mode of transportation.
3
Many critical battlefield sites in the City of Winchester and Frederick County are
adjacent to rail facilities and connect, for example, to Harper's Ferry to the north.
Opequon/Third Battle of Winchester: A second phase has been identified involving the
acquisition of the Caleb Heights portions of the Opequon/Third Battle of Winchester site. The
Opequon Battlefield site is a potential national historic landmark. The Caleb Heights site is a
particularly significant portion of the Battlefield. It will be our intention to apply for ISTEA
Enhancement funding to acquire this site once the Kernstown Battlefields are secured.
5. Priority Number: This enhancement proposal was determined to be the number one priority
project by the Winchester City Council and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors.
6. Hearing/Endorsements: The Winchester City Council held a public hearing for this proposal
on March 8, 1994. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on March
29, 1994. Copies of the public notices from these meetings are enclosed.
This Enhancement Proposal has received endorsements from the Lord Fairfax Planning District
Commission, the City of Winchester Planning Commission, the Frederick County Planning
Commission, the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission, the
Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society, the Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of
Commerce Tourism Committee, the Frederick County Transportation Committee, the
Preservation of Historic Winchester, the Civil War Institute of Shenandoah University, the
Winchester Wheelmen Bicycle Club, the Civil War Round Table of New York, Inc., and the
Bull Run Civil War Round Table.
7. Project Schedule:
Phase I - The acquisition of the Kernstown Battlefields by December 1, 1996.
Phase II - The acquisition of the Caleb Heights portions of the Opequon/Third
Winchester Battlefield Site once the Kernstown Battlefields are secured. The
implementation of interpretive elements that will enhance the continuity and travel
experience between and throughout the acquired sites.
Subsequent Actions - Additional actions in relation to critical sites that are part of the
Civil War Battlefield Tour Network. Participation with other jurisdictions in the
development of heritage tours throughout the Shenandoah Valley.
2
8. Project Ownership: The property will be owned initially by the City of Winchester and
Frederick County and maintained in its current pristine condition as open space. It will then be
donated to the National Park Service as part of the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefield Park.
Current activities are underway toward the establishment of a Civil War Task Force at the State
level. This Task Force will work with the National Park Service and private foundations to
establish cooperative agreements for acceptance and maintenance of acquired properties and their
facilities. If Federal legislation is not enacted and the Shenandoah Valley Civil War Battlefield
Park is not created, alternative arrangements will be made involving the Commonwealth to select
a reputable private foundation or organization.
9. Project Costs:
Total Project Cost Phase 1): $2,762,788
RpAuested ISTEA Enhancement Fundin : $2,200,000
Local Match: $ 500,000
Local In -Kind Match: $ 62,788
Project Budget:
Kernstown Battlefields Acquisition: $2,700,000
Project Planning and Management: $ 62,788
Description of Local Match:
The City of Winchester and Frederick County are purchasing a two year option on the property
that is the site of the Kernstown Battlefields. During each of the two years, $250,000 will be
paid by the localities to the owner. The total $500,000 will apply to the final purchase price of
the property ($2,700,000).
The In -Kind Match represents the time and resources devoted by the Frederick County Planning
Department, the City of Winchester Planning Department, the Lord Fairfax Planning District
Commission, and the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission to the
planning of the Civil War Battlefield Tour Network and the management of this project.
The City of Winchester and Frederick County intend to purchase the complete battlefield which
will be included in the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield National Park. Purchase of less than all
of the site will limit the viability of the project. However, the City of Winchester and Frederick
County will accept IRE4 Enhancement Funding for less than the full purchase price. The
5
applicants are seeking alternative sources of funding. If ISTEA Enhancement Funding is
provided for less than the amount provided, alternative sources will be sought to supplement the
ISTEA funding.
10. Benefits: The acquisition of the Kernstown Battlefields will be the first essential step in
creating a Civil War Battlefield Tour Network in the City of Winchester and Frederick County,
and the linchpin of the proposed Shenandoah Valley Civil War National Battlefield Park. Such
a network will be an enhancement to travel on Interstate 81 and the other highways in our
region. The Kernstown Battlefields will also be a part of a larger Shenandoah Valley Tour
Network. Many benefits will be realized through the acquisition of the Kernstown Battlefields.
These benefits include enhancements to the transportation network, environmental preservation,
scenic and aesthetic features, and public education.
Transportation Benefits - The preservation of the Kernstown Battlefields and other
significant historic sites will provide an opportunity to create a networked travel system
that will promote intermodal choices. All components of this network will be integrated
and interconnected, creating an on-going enhancement to the overall transportation
system. The creation of this intermodal network is an innovative technique that will
permit various modes of travel within the community through an integrated, enhanced
transportation system.
Environmental Benefits - The preservation of the Kernstown Battlefields will enhance
land, air., and water quality. Deer and other wildlife have been located on the battlefield
site. Under this proposal it will continue to serve as wildlife habitat. The preservation
of this site will promote the maintenance of air quality. The site is crossed by streams
and its preservation will also promote water quality. The maintenance of this open space
will be highly compatible with surrounding urban and rural uses.
Scenic and Aesthetic Benefits - The preservation of the Kernstown Battlefields will
maintain the outstanding open space views from Route 37 and other surrounding roads.
The existing Grim Farm is a rolling agricultural site with vast open fields, wooded areas,
historic farm structures and strategic scenic high points. From any aesthetic viewpoint,
it will provide a valuable open space area.
Public Education Benefits - The preservation of the Kernstown Battlefields and other
critical battlefield sites and notable historic sites in the area contribute significantly to the
history of Virginia and the Nation. The sites involved are of national and statewide
historic significance. There is a demonstrable need to preserve this heritage and to use
it to educate our children. There is also a need to promote economic development
through tourism to better serve this need. This enhancement proposal will be an
important first step in meeting these needs. It will clearly improve the quality of life for
the communI'tAl
G
Conclusion:
The Civil War Battlefield Tour Network will attract and be used by out of state and in state
travelers. It will contribute to the statewide and local tourism development efforts. It will
provide an opportunity to contribute to an integrated open space and park system that is based
on historic values. This park system will be integrated with an historic travel way system
involving local roads, bikeways, and pedestrian routes. These park and travel systems will be
used by local residents and tourists. The opportunity for innovation involves the combination
of transportation, historic preservation and open space preservation. Such an integrated
approach will greatly improve the quality of life for area residents and for travelers. It should
also be noted that this project is a multijurisdictional project promoting cooperation between
City and County. This proposal is the first step toward the creation of an Intermodal Tour
Network that will provide the kinds of travel enhancements and benefits envisioned by the
ISTEA legislation.
7
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703 / 665-5651
Fax 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Robert Watkins, Director iww"
SUBJECT: Issues and Strategies from the 1994 Retreat
DATE: December 13, 1994
The following are some of the issues discussed at the 1994 retreat:
Obtaining state funding for needed road improvements. Lack of funding for roads.
The need to provide sewage disposal solutions to small rural areas without opening the
areas for development.
The concern about setting precedents with decisions and how this concern inhibits the
creation of solutions.
Residential drainage problems.
Right to farm act.
The proper use of proffers, challenges to the proffer system, and whether proffers are an
efficient tool.
Concern about the development of battlefields.
Concern about the compatibility and quality of new development.
Concern about the extension of water and sewer service outside of the Urban
Development Area.
-, fie heed for aesthetically pleasing development.
9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
Page 2
Planning Commission
Re: Issues and Strategies from 1994 Retreat
December 12, 1994
Strip shopping centers
The need for new business/industrial areas with rail access.
The need to encourage new retail development.
The quality of signs along the interstate and sign variances granted by the BZA.
The lack of public awareness of the planning process. The need to educate the public.
The preservation, use, and maintenance of open space.
Availability of background information on properties to support decisions. Need for
information concerning past decisions.
. T ne phasing of development and the phasing of the provision of street connections.
Vesting of master plan requirements. Can there be a statute of limitations vestan&Q'
J
The need for the public to understand the value of connecting and networking roads.
The need to improve the system for prioritizing road improvements
The following are possible strategies that can be used to address the above issues:
Provide a history of past decisions on a property as a part of staff reports.
Provide better information on project status in the bimonthly report.
When possible, call staff before meeting to ask questions.
Provide better platting and GIS information on properties in staff reports.
Provide better maps for rezonings and CUP's.
Page 3
Planning Commission
Re: Issues and Strategies from 1994 Retreat
December 12, 1994
Set a "statute of limitations" or time limit on pending development applications
Use cable TV to provide planning information to the public.
Use video taping to provide planning information.
Find ways to inform the public of the services provided
Carry out intensive lobbying for road funding.
Conduct a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and BZA.
Look at appropriateness of zero lot line subdivisions.
Ask General Assembly to replace .cash proffers- with impact fees.
The staff will look at ways to bring these strategies about.
RWiV\bah