Loading...
PC 06-07-95 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia JUNE 7, 1995 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Meeting Minutes of May 3, 1995 ............................ A 2) Bimonthly Report ..................................... B 3) Committee Reports ..................................... C 4) Citizen Comments ..................................... D 5) Subdivision Application #004-95 of Sue Yost to subdivide 7.78 acres. This property is located at the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Route 522) and Cumberland Trail (Route 694), and is identified with PIN 06 -A -75I in the Gainesboro District. (Mr. Miller) ......................................... E 6) Subdivision Application #005-95 of Lenoir City Company to subdivide 3.486 acres. This property is located at the intersection of McGhee Road and Irentmere Road in the Stonewall Industrial Park, and is identified with PIN 43-19-1 in the Gainesboro District. (Mr. Miller) ......................................... F 7) Subdivision Application #006-95 of RT&T Partnership to subdivide 29.6 acres. This property is located on Valley Pike (Route 11 south), approximately .5 miles south of the intersection of Route 37 and Valley Pike, and is identified with PIN 75 -A -2D in the Back Creek District. (Mr. Miller) ......................................... G 2 8) Coventry Courts; revised request for exemption from Subdivision Ordinance requirements for curbs, gutters and sidewalks. (Mr. Tierney) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H PUBLIC HEARINGS 9) Proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article XV, Historic Area Overlay Zone, Section 165-114, General Regulations. (Mr. Lawrence) ....................................... I 10) Conditional Use Permit #005-95 of Roy M. White for a cottage occupation for woodworking and furniture production. This property is located at 995 Round Hill Road (Rt. 803), in the Back Creek District and identified with PIN 52-A- 140. (Mr. Miller) ........................................ J 11) Rezoning Application #002-95 of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to -- rezone 3.4087 acres from RA (Rural Area) to B2 (Business General District). The property is located on Macedonia Church Road (Route 642) approximately 1800' from the intersection of Route 37, in the Shawnee District and is identified with PIN 75-1-A. (Mr. Tierney) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K 12) Other .................................................L MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on May 3, 1995. PRESENT: Plannin2 Commissioners gresent were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District, Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison. ABSENT: Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison Planning Staff present: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - MEETING OF APRIL 5 1995 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr.. Romine, the meeting minutes of April 5, 1995 were unanimously approved as presented. 4 BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee - 4/13/95 Mtg. Mr. Wyatt reported that the DRRS will have a special meeting on May 11 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss minor collector road standards. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPC will hold a community meeting for the Round Hill residents on May 8, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the Round Hill Fire Hall. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the purpose of the meeting will be to solicit input from community residents and land owners concerning the future of Round Hill. She said that a notice and comment sheet were mailed to land owners within the bounds of the Round Hill Community Center. Historic Resources Advisory Board Mr. Tierney said that the Board of Supervisors awarded plaques for ten local historic sites that were recognized as nationally significant. Economic „Development „ Commission Mr. Romine reported that the EDC is beginning to get involved with the George Washington Hotel solution, the Grimm property, and a plastics recycling program. Mr. Romine said that the EDC is also discussing cooperative purchasing and integrated networking under the guidance of Shenandoah College. N PUBLIC HEARINGS Rezoning Application #001-95 of Wayne R. Ridgeway to rezone 2.047 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition). This property is identified with PIN 42-A-249 in the Gainesboro District. Action - Tabled for 90 Days Mr. Tierney presented a letter from Mr. Wayne R. Ridgeway requesting that the Planning Commission table consideration of his rezoning application for up to 90 days so that he can address some of the staff's concerns. Mr. Tierney said that Mr. Ridgeway is proposing a retail hardware store with equipment rental including U -Haul trucks and trailers. He said that the applicant has submitted a proffer which excludes a number of the uses permitted in B3 Zoning and offers to contribute the amount necessary to offset the projected impact to Fire and Rescue, however, there are a number of uses which would remain that the staff feels would not be appropriate. He said that those uses would be mobile home dealers, gas stations, and self- service storage facilities. Mr. Tierney said that other staff concerns involved the Health Department comments, in which they state that the septic system is "not suitable for anything other than its present use" and traffic. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Barbara Kidwell, adjoining property owner, presented a petition with 38 signatures of residents within a quarter mile of the property under consideration, who were opposed to the rezoning. Mrs. Kidwell said that the public hearing notice was posted on new Route 522 and most of the people in her neighborhood travel Route 789 to the stop light at the Virginia Farm Market, so she felt many people were not aware a rezoning was pending. She stated that her neighborhood was a densely populated residential area and she was concerned about the U -Haul rentals because of the traffic and strangers that could result at all hours of the day and night. She was also concerned about stormwater runoff. Mrs. Kidwell said that an issue was raised that this ' area has established businesses; she noted that these businesses, such as Ridge Country Store, Omps Garage, the Bus Shop, and the Virginia Farm Market cannot be seen from her residential neighborhood. She said that the only visible business is the beauty salon, which is operating under a conditional use permit, and it has limited hours and minimal traffic. Mrs. Kidwell was concerned that B3 Zoning opened this property up to other objectionable uses and some of those uses could devalue homes and properties. Mrs. Kidwell added that some of the neighbors she spoke with felt that if this was a conditional permit, or if it was strictly a hardware store, or if it had the entrance strictly on C! new Route 522, they would consider it more favorably. Mr. Glen Combs, representing Bethel Luthren Church, said that Bethel Church owns a parsonage directly across the property under consideration. Mr. Combs said that Bethel Church is in opposition because it would reduce the value of surrounding residential properties. He said that they were also opposed because of the additional traffic, both automobiles and trucks, and strangers to the area. He added that this is a residential area and they would like for it to remain that way. Mr. Joe Lizer said that his wife, Lita, and himself own the property adjoining the proposed rezoning site and his wife operates the beauty shop. Mr. Lizer said that seven years ago, the Feathers proposed B2 Zoning for a used car lot on this site and he felt this was not the best use for the site. Mr. Lizer said that the Planning Commission denied that B2 use and now, Mr. Feathers and Mr. Ridgeway are asking for a B3 use. Mr. Lizer said that both he and his wife have concerns about the U -Hauls, the outdoor storage, and the possibility of a fence around the property. Mr. Lizer felt this site did not meet the County's criteria for a B3 Zoning. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table consideration of Rezoning Application #001-95 of Wayne R. Ridgeway for 90 days, at the applicant's request. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, the Commission voted unanimously to make the petition submitted by Mrs. Kidwell a part of the official record. Conditional Use Permit #004-95 of Roger L. Gardner for an automotive repair shop without body repair. This property is located at 472 Bloomery Pike (Route 127) in Whitacre and is identified with PIN 11 -A -24E in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Miller said that the applicant will construct a new building to accommodate his use. He said that the proposed location will be screened from Bloomery Pike (Rt. 127) due to elevation and it will be screened from an adjoining residence by a wooded area. He said that the residence is 500' away. Mr. Miller added that a relocated entrance site on the north side of the property has been agreed upon by VDOT and Mr. Gardner. Mr. Roger L. Gardner, the owner and applicant, was available to answer 5 questions from the Commission. There were no citizen comments. The Commission was of the opinion that the proposed use would not significantly impact the neighborhood. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #004-95 of Roger L. Gardner for an automotive repair shop without body repair with the following conditions: 1. The entrance to the property shall be relocated and constructed as required by VDOT prior to opening for business. 2. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 3. All work shall take place entirely within an enclosed building. 4. No outside storage of parts or equipment shall be permitted and no inoperative vehicles will be allowed to be stored on the property. 5. No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be located on the property at any time. 6. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Renewal of the 1995 Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The renewal of the Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District will preserve approximately 15,000 acres of property within the Back Creek Magisterial District and the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt said that the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District is scheduled for renewal this Spring and this will be the third renewal for this district which was established in 1980. He said that during the 15 -year existence of this district, significant agricultural properties have continued to request to remain in this district and at this time, the proposed district consists of almost 15,000 acres (216 properties; 89 individual property owners). R Mr. Wyatt said that the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) considered this district during their meeting of April 11, 1995 and recommended approval of the district. The ADAC also recommended that restrictions be placed on these properties to prohibit traditional five -acre lot subdivisions and rural preservation lot subdivisions. He said that this restriction does not prohibit family lot divisions and land divisions for agricultural purposes. There were no citizen comments. The Commission expressed concern about the impact this district might have on the construction or improvement of road and corridor networks. Mr. Wyatt stated that there are provisions in the State Code that allows state agencies or public utilities a minimal amount of access, however, that would need to go before the Board of Supervisors for approval. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the renewal of the 1995 Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District to preserve approximately 15,000 acres of property within the Back Creek Magisterial District. An Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165-60, Conditional Uses, to permit veterinary offices, clinics, or hospitals. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Wyatt stated that on April 5, 1995, the Commission and staff informally discussed the potential for permitting veterinary offices, clinics, or hospitals with a conditional use permit in the RP District. He said that the Planning Commission felt that the use was conducive to residential areas, provided that commercial kennels were not permitted as an accessory use to the operation. He said that the Planning Commission also felt that performance standards could not be created across the board for the RP District due to the characteristics associated with each development. There were no public comments. The Commission felt that inclusion of this use in the RP District under the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance would allow both the Commission and Board to restrict any particular site. Mr. Marker said that he received a few phone calls regarding this from people in his district. He pointed out that this is not an across-the-board use in the RP, but is permitted with a conditional use permit. Upon motion made by Mr. Stone and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the ordinance to amend Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article VI, Residential Performance District, Section 165-60, Conditional Uses, as follows: 165-60 Conditional Uses Uses permitted with a conditional use permit F. Veterinary Offices, Clinics, or Hospitals, excluding boarding of animals for non- medical, purposes. An amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, to create a new Article which will be entitled, IA Interstate Area Overlay Zone. The proposed Article will allow identified properties at the eight Interstate 81 interchange areas to erect free standing commercial business signs that are of a greater height and square footage. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt said that during the April 19, 1995 meeting, the Planning Commission felt that the overall concept of the IA Overlay District was appropriate and that the DRRS's comments should be incorporated into the final draft for public hearing. He said that the Commission also felt that defined boundaries should be used to designate the properties to be included in the IA Overlay District in its initial state. Mr. Wyatt reported that during the Board of Supervisors' April 26, 1995 meeting, several Board members stated that they did not have significant concerns with signs being taller or greater in square footage than what was proposed, if it was for the economic good of Frederick County. He said that a recommendation to increase the maximum height above mean sea level at each interchange by an additional ten feet was made, as well as a recommendation to increase the maximum square footage for individual signs and shared -pole signs by 100 square feet. Mr. Wyatt reviewed each of the additions and/or changes that were made at the Commission's April 19th meeting and the suggestions made at the Board's April 26th meeting. Mr. Thomas Rockwood, Attorney, said that he was representing Nick and Kathy Nerangis and Nerangis Enterprises in a pending lawsuit which is challenging the validity of a variance granted for one particular sign at the Route 11 Interchange in Frederick County. Mr. Rockwood said that he was speaking in support of the County's existing sign regulations. He said that his client has been in the fast food business in Frederick County for some years and has shown himself and his companies to be a major asset to this community, both in community activities and financially, in terms of tax revenue. Mr. Rockwood said that the Commission has been asked to produce a major policy change to previous County sign regulations in a very short period of time in which, he believed, was in response to a particular difficulty or confusion over how sign regulations should be enforced and interpreted as they now exist. Mr. Rockwood commented that the Board of Supervisors indicated at their April 26th meeting a desire for increases in the square footage and height of signs above those proposed in the IA Overlay District by the Commission. Mr. Rockwood asked that the Commission consider that the County's sign ordinance and the height restrictions have been in place for many years and, specifically speaking for Mr. Nerangis, the sign ordinances have worked well and his businesses have prospered. He said that there is no reason to lightly, quickly, or in response to a specific case before the Circuit Court, convert what is now a dispute between private litigants and the BZA involving one parcel, into a county -wide policy which will effect all of the parcels in the designated areas and that will make a major change in the face of the community. Mr. Rockwood said that in terms of the efficacy of these signs, Mr. Nerangis has related that his sign at the Route t 1 business location has been in place since that business opened. He said that when the blue interstate highway sign was installed designating to the I-81 traveling public the existence of the McDonalds, Mr. Nerangis's volume jumped over 20% and that volume has remained at the higher level consistently. Mr. Rockwood said that the blue signs work. He said that they work to induce interstate travellers to use these businesses, they work to reduce visual clutter and aesthetic blight, which he felt resulted from the installation of many signs of great height and area. Mr. Rockwood added that this matter has been studied by the Chamber of Commerce, which has proposed a lowering of height limits in the entry corridors to the City, and this policy has also been subscribed to by the Economic Development Commission. Mr. Rockwood said that the existing policy was not lightly considered; he said that it has been in effect and has worked well for Frederick County and is supported by business entities in Frederick County for many years and he felt it was not time to change it. There were no other public comments. Mr. Sager, Board Liaison, said the size increases recommended by the Board were just one part of several recommendations, one of which was the inclusion of using signs to advertise shopping malls or outlets. Mr. Sager said that the Board felt that in certain areas, 0 there was a need for visibility. He said that the Board recommended the larger sizes as a means of developing a better revenue source. Mr. Ours said that he served on the Chamber of Commerce's Corridor Appearance Task Force and, therefore, he remembers what that Committee was trying to accomplish. Mr. Ours said that the Task Force felt there was a need for consistency in our signs. He pointed out that signs were just one of a number of elements that were addressed in the Task Force's recommendation. He said that personally, he would not support any increased sizes. Mr. Ours felt the Overlay District could be a workable part of this, but he felt the limits had been reached. The majority of the Planning Commissioners felt that 200 square feet should be the maximum limit for free standing business signs in the IA Overlay District and that 400 square feet should be the maximum size for signs that share a common support pole. The Commission also felt that the advertised heights above mean sea level were appropriate based on the topography and existing land uses at each interchange. It was also noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals needed to understand the intent of this new article and be willing to support it as a remedy for working with property owners within the interstate interchange areas. Chairman DeHaven said that he did not agree with the viewpoint that larger signs were needed to draw the public off of the interstate, but if this is what is decided, his concern was that the larger and taller signs are not placed the whole way down the corridor. Chairman DeHaven preferred the moderately-sized signs to improve the appearance and eliminate clutter, even at the interchange areas. Mr. Shickle said that he supported the Board's recommendations, however, there was more about the proposed amendment that he agreed with than disagreed with. Mr. Wilson said that he did not have a problem with the Board's recommendations. Mr. Light moved to adopt the IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District guidelines as presented and advertised. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, to create a new article entitled, "IA (Interstate Area) Overlay Zone. " This proposed article will allow identified properties at eight I-81 interchange areas to erect free standing commercial business signs that are of a greater height and square footage. This amendment was approved by a majority vote as follows: YES TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED Romine, Shickle, Ours NO- DeHaven (Mr. Thomas and Mr. Morris were absent.) 10 Stone, Light, Copenhaver, Marker, Wilson, An Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-30, Signs, to revise the minimum spacing, height, size, maintenance, and permitting requirements for signs as defined in Chapter 165. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt presented the proposed sign ordinance amendments as recommended by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) and the Chamber of Commerce Corridor Appearance Task Force (CATF). Mr. Wyatt said that these recommendations were created to assist with the long term appearance of roadway corridors leading into the community. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff believed that the proposed amendments reflected the community as a whole to ensure consistency in the commercial and industrial areas and to mitigate problems when less significant or future commercial and industrial corridors are developed throughout the County. Mr. Wyatt said that during the Planning Commission's previous discussion of this amendment on November 16, concerns were expressed about the increase in the minimum spacing requirements between freestanding business signs and the requirements of this section applying to property that is in the RA (Rural Areas) District. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS discussed this issue and felt that the proposed language for minimum spacing requirements provided some relief in that the Zoning Administrator may reduce the minimum distance in specific situations. He said that the DRRS also felt that these requirements should pertain to all businesses, regardless of the zoning classification of the property that the business was located on. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission felt that the amendments were consistent with the desires of the business community. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend 11 approval of the amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-30, Signs, to revise the minimum spacing, height, size, maintenance, and permitting requirements for signs as defined in Chapter 165. This resolution was approved by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED): Stone, Light, Copenhaver, Marker, DeHaven, Wilson, Romine, Ours NO.- Shickle (Mr. Morris and Mr. Thomas were absent.) Revised Master Development Plan #003-95 of Regency Lakes Estates. The applicants are proposing to revise the current master development plan to realign roads within the development and to provide future roadway connections to the Caleb Heights property located to the north. The remaining 106.9 acres are proposed to be developed to provide single and double wide mobile homes. This property is identified as PIN 86-A-20 in the Stonewall District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the consulting engineers for this project, said that he was representing the owners, Oakwood Land Development Company. Mr. Maddox said that this property was rezoned in the mid 1980's and a master development plan was a part of the proffer for rezoning. He stated that the revised plan calls for less units and is well below the allowable gross density. He explained that the average lot size has increased from a minimum 4,000 square feet in Section A, to 5,000 square feet in Section C, and is now approaching 6,000 square feet in Section D. Mr. Maddox discussed the revised collector roads; he noted that 40' of right-of-way has been dedicated from this property for the collector road (this is half the right-of-way needed); and he noted that the buffer along the northern property line was inadvertently left off the revised plan, however, it will be placed on the final plan as a full screen (a berm with plantings) with a 35' distance buffer. Mr. Wyatt said that all the concerns of the staff were addressed by Mr. Maddox's comments, however, the final master plan needed to better define the road efficiency buffer along the major collector road. There were no public comments. 12 The Planning Commission had no problems with the revisions provided that the applicant address all comments and concerns of the staff, the review agencies, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Revised Master Development Plan #003-95 of Regency Lakes Estates with the stipulation that the Final Master Development Plan include statements regarding the development of the collector roads, a description of the road efficiency buffer along the major collector road, a statement that provides the amount of property that would be dedicated for the major collector road, and the inclusion of a 35 foot buffer with full screening along the northern property line. Revised Master Development Plan #002-95 of Coventry Courts for the development of 14.52 acres for single-family housing. This property is located on the west side of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), approximately 2,000 feet north of the intersection of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) and Senseny Road (Rt. 657) and is identified as PIN 55-A-185 in the Shawnee District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Tierney said that the property is zoned RP (Residential Performance) and adjoins RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) land. He said that the plan was originally approved for 38 single-family cluster lots. Mr. Tierney stated that the original road layout was similar to the revised plan, but involved a second entrance on Greenwood Road. He explained that the current plan eliminates that second connection, eliminates four lots, and increases the minimum lot size from 8,000 to 12,000 square feet. Mr. Tierney said that there were some concerns with the revised plan as originally submitted. He said that most of those concerns have been addressed, however, there is still some uncertainty concerning the location of woodlands and the amount of disturbance to woodlands and steep slopes. He said that the other concern involves phasing and, in particular, the through connection to the Abrams Point tract being designated as a phase by itself (Phase IV) and the final stage of the development. Mr. Tierney said that some assurances need to be made that Phase IV will be completed. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the consulting engineers, said That he was representing the owner, Elaine B. Longerbeam. Mr. Gyurisin said that the crossover to Abrams Point will be built with the development of Section IV and as lots are put on record, the applicant will work with the staff to provide a bond. With regard to the disturbance of woodland areas, Mr. Gyurisin said that the applicant will work with the staff to 13 clearly identify that area and meet Code requirements. He said that they have kept as much of the development as possible on the Greenwood Road portion of the site in order to limit the amount of disturbance to the steep sloped area, which is located on the west side of this property. Mr. Gyurisin added that they have lowered the number of lots from 38 single-family cluster lots to 34 single-family detached lots at 12,000 square feet or greater. He said that the plan was also revised to show only one entrance, Farmington Boulevard, which comes off Greenwood Road. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mrs. Bettie E. Winslow, adjoining property owner, said that traffic is the major concern of the residents in this area. She said that they have seen a considerable increase in traffic since traffic lights were installed on Berryville Avenue. She said that Greenwood Road is used as a shortcut from Route 7 to Route 50 and from Route 50 into Winchester. Mrs. Winslow said that at peak traffic times, it is almost impossible for the residents along Greenwood Road to pull out of their driveways. She said that VDOT has stated that Greenwood Road is not scheduled to be widened for two years and she requested that a turn lane into this development be constructed until Greenwood Road could be widened. Mrs. Winslow said that another minor concern of area residents is drainage, because of all the steep slopes on this property. Mr. Tierney stated that it was not generally uncommon for the staff to have questions on the delineations for steep slopes or woodlands; however, the concern here is that there are so much woodlands and so many steep slopes, that the applicant is very close to the limits of the maximum allowable disturbance. He said that under these circumstances, we need to make sure that they are within the limits. Mr. Charles Maddox, also of G. W. Clifford & Associates, responded by saying that because this revised master plan had less lots than the original plan, he felt it was less intrusive on the environment. Mr. Maddox said that a requirement approaching the elimination of development in woodland areas was not appropriate because generally, those areas are the most desirable for residential development because of quality of life issues. Mr. Maddox said that this development qualifies for woodland disturbance, since it is a single-family development. He said that he was willing to work with the staff to assure that disturbance met requirements. Regarding stormwater management, Mr. Maddox explained that the bridge across the creek would be outfitted with a pipe which is sized somewhat smaller than what is normally required by VDOT. Mr. Maddox explained how the detention devise worked. He said that once the bridge is built, substantial stormwater improvement will take place along this area. The Planning Commission felt that the bridge/crossover would have to be bonded at 50% lot build out. The Commission was also in agreement that the applicant needed to accurately identify the location and amount of disturbance to environmental features. Both Mr. Gyurisin and Mr. Maddox agreed that bonding could be supplied at 50% build out. Mr. 14 Maddox also noted that he would work with the staff on designation of the environmental areas. Mr. Romine moved to approve the Revised Master Development Plan and this was seconded by Mr. Shickle. Mr. Marker moved to amend Mr. Romine's motion to state that the crossover/ bridge should be bonded at 50% lot build out. This motion was seconded and unanimously passed. The Commission unanimously approved the amended motion, as follows: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Revised Master Development Plan #002-95 of Coventry Courts to develop 14.52 acres for single-family housing, contingent on the following: 1. The applicant will supply information which satisfactorily demonstrates the accuracy of the location, and the amount of disturbance to, environmental features, and that the amount of the disturbance does not exceed permitted limits, and; 2. Bonding will need to be provided at 50% lot build out to guarantee the completion of the bridge/crossover on Farmington Boulevard, indicated as Phase IV. Request Pertaining to Exemption from Subdivision Ordinance Requirements, Section 144- 17.L and Section 144-18.A, Curbs, Gutters, and Sidewalks. Action - Recommended Denial Mr. Tierney said that the staff received a letter from Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam, the owner of Coventry Courts, to Mr. John R. Riley, Jr., the County Administrator, requesting an exemption from the Subdivision Ordinance requirements that require curbs, gutters, and sidewalks for subdivisions containing lots under 15,000 square feet. He said that the Subdivision Ordinance has a provision to allow for exemptions, based on cases of "unusual situations" or "substantial injustice or hardship." He said that Mrs. Longerbeam's position was that the total number of lots has been reduced, the lot size has increased, the original plan did not require curb, gutter, and sidewalks, and the connection to Greenwood Road was eliminated; and therefore, based on these changes, she should not be required to install the curb, gutter, and sidewalks in the current design. Mr. Tierney said that the staff's position was that these changes did not constitute a hardship or an unusual situation. Mr. Tierney said that the fact that the revision to the MDP contains four fewer lots and eliminates an entrance onto Greenwood Road does not, in the staff's opinion, have any bearing on whether or not the requirement for curb, gutter, and sidewalks constitutes a hardship. He said that with regard to the through connection to Abrams Point, this 15 connection has been in the Eastern Road Plan since its conception. He said that this connection was required by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and was a component of the original MDP, not a change from the original plan. Mr. Tierney pointed out some recent instances where master plans were approved, then revised, and the subsequent subdivisions were required to install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the consulting engineers for this project, was present to represent Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam and the Coventry Courts Master Plan. Mr. Maddox said that due to the fact that this was a small project, the construction of the bridge/crossover associated with the site imposed a hardship because of the resulting cost of individual lots. Mr. Wyatt said that in the near future, the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) will be discussing minor collector road standards. Mr. Wyatt said a problem facing the County is not being able to build collector roads through areas with established lot frontages because of public opposition. Mr. Wyatt said that lot owners are usually opposed because there is no where for them to walk, to bike, and there are safety concerns. He said that when the DRRS reviews collector road requirements, they will more than likely recommend sidewalks on both sides of the collector roads that have lots fronting on them. The majority of Commissioners felt that sidewalks on both sides of a collector road were absolutely necessary and that either sidewalks, curbs and gutters, or a pathway system connecting each lot with the sidewalk system on the collector road should be required. The Commission felt there was neither a unique or unusual situation associated with this request that would enable the County to waive the requirements here and continue to apply it elsewhere. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the request of Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam for exemption from Subdivision Ordinance Requirements 144-17.L and 144-18.A for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks at the Coventry Courts site be denied in the best interest of quality development for Frederick County. The vote on this resolution was as follows: YES TO DENY THE EXEMPTION): Copenhaver, Light, NO: Romine, Stone (Mr. Thomas and Mr. Morris were absent.) Ours, Shickle, Wilson, DeHaven, Marker, 16 ADJOURNMENT No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report DATE: May 24, 1995 (1) REZONINGS PENDING• (dates are submittal dates) James Carroll 10/07/94 Shaw RP to B2 Wayne Ridgeway 04/05/95 Gain RA to B3 Fred. Co. Sanitation Auth. 05/15/95 Shaw RA to B2 (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PENDING• (dates are submittal dates) repair Roy M. White 05/12/95 woodworking/furniture (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS APPROVED: (dates are approval dates) Roger L. Gardner 05/14/95 Gain Public Garage w/o body (4) SITE PLANS PENDING: (dates are submittal dates) Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. 09/12/89 Opeq Trmt. facility Grace Brethren Church 06/08/90 Shaw Church Flex Tech 10/25/90 Ston Light Industrial Mad Bomber 04/11/95 Shaw Office/Warehouse Red Apple Deli 05/01/95 Opeq Deli Church of Christ Mt. View 05/03/95 Back Church Hoss' Steak & Seafood House 05/10/95 Shaw Restaurant Lenoir City Co. (Lot 16) 05/11/95 Ston Warehouse 2 K&J Investments 05/18/95 Ston Lakeview Townhouses V,VI,VII 05/19/95 Shaw Frederick Co. Landfill 05/23/95 Shaw (5) SITE PLANS APPROVED: (dates are approval dates) Packs Frozen Custard 04/18/95 Back (6) SUBDIVISIONS PENDING: (dates are submittal dates) Briarwood Est. Sue Yost Lenoir City Co. RT&T Partnership 01/04/94 Ston 05/12/95 Gain 05/12/95 Gain 05/17/95 Back Warehouse Townhouses Maintenance building Ice Cream Stand (7) SUBDIVISIONS PENDING FINAL ADMIN. APPROVAL: (P/C or BOS approval dates Abrams Point, Phase I 06/13/90 Shaw Fredericktowne Est., Sec 9 10/06/93 Opeq Harry Stimpson 10/26/94 Opeq Hampton Chase Section I 11/02/94 Ston Winc. - Fred. IDC 05/03/95 Back Winc. - Fred. IDC 05/11/95 Back (8) PRELIMINARY MASTER DEV. PLANS PENDING: (dates, ,are submittal dates) Fieldstone Heights 04/25/94 Ston Coventry Courts (revised) 03/31/95 Shaw Regency Lakes Est.(revised) 04/20/95 Ston (9) FINAL MASTER DEV. PLAN PENDING ADMIN. APPROVAL: (BOS aprvl dates) Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 Back James R. Wilkins III 04/14/93 Shaw Valley Mill Estates 04/26/95 Ston 3 10) VARIANCES PENDING• (dates are submittal dates) NONE 11) VARIANCES APPROVED• (dates are approval dates) Lewis & Assoc. 05/16/95 Gain O.L. Payne 05/16/95 Ston 1E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #81 a 1-1 1. Trans ortation Bob Watkins and Evan Wyatt, and other representatives of Frederick County, met with developers and G. W. Clifford & Associates to discuss the current requirements for collector roads. At this time, the majority of the design standards are the same for each type of road. The DRRS and the Planning Commission will begin work to determine what language may need to be created to apply different design standards for major collector roads and minor collector roads. 2. Historic Preservation Bob Watkins met with local representatives and representatives of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to discuss proposals to locate a branch office in Winchester. 3. Plan Reviews Approvals, and Site Inspections: Evan Wyatt reviewed revisions to the Regency Lakes Estates Master Development Plan, the Winchester Regional Airport site plan, and the Lakeview Townhouse site plan. Evan Wyatt conducted site inspections at the Price Club site, the Winchester Church of God site, the Liberty Baptist site, and the Children's Services Center site. Jean Moore, reviewed the final site plan for the Exxon station in Clearbrook. The site plan was administratively approved on May 2, 1995. 4. Board of Zoning Anneals Jean Moore reviewed and made recommendations for the following variance applications: Variance #005-95: Lewis and Associates are requesting a 25' height variance to build a church that is proposed to be 60' in height. The proposed church is to be built at the intersection of North Frederick Pike and Cross Junction Road. Variance #006-95: Lewis and Associates are requesting an exemption from the buffering and screening requirements in order to construct an additional storage building for Oliver Payne's well drilling business. Payne's business is located off Route 11 in Stephenson. 5. Roundhill Community Meeting Eric Lawrence, Jean Moore, and Renee' Arlotta aided Kris Tierney with preparations and facilitated citizen group discussions for the Round Hill Community meeting held on May 8, 1995. 6. Meetings Kris Tierney met with residents of Mill Race Estates to discuss concerns over the recently approved Master Development Plan for Valley Mill Estates. The new development will use Mill Race Drive for access. Kris Tierney attended a meeting with various County and City officials, held at the Winchester -Frederick County EDC office. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the potential location of the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, APCWS, within Frederick County or Winchester. Kris Tierney met with representatives of G.W. Clifford & Associates to discuss the Valley Mill Estates MDP. Evan Wyatt met with Winchester City Planning Director, Tim Youmans, to discuss the proposed requirements for signs along business corridors in Frederick County. It was determined that the proposed height and square footage amendments parallel the existing requirements in the City. Evan Wyatt met with Keith Burr of Greenway, Inc. to discuss final plan requirements necessary to approve the Wilkins Master Development Plan for apartments and townhouses along Valley Mill Road. Evan Wyatt met with Tony Sala of Silver Companies to discuss requirements associated with the Preston Place II Apartment and Townhouse Master Development Plan. Bob Watkins met with representatives of the Star Fort Development to discuss certain proposals. Bob Watkins met with Ed Dove to discuss various development proposals. Jean Moore met with Bonnie Foster to discuss a possible variance for building an addition to John's Grocery, located on North Frederick Pike. Jean Moore and Evan Wyatt met with John Lewis to discuss buffering and screening requirements for developments within M-1 Zoning. (Mr. Lewis is representing Mr. Oliver Payne for a variance from the screening and buffer requirements.) Jean Moore met with Randy Hoover to discuss an addition to his residence located in Mill Race Estates. Jean Moore met with Laura Gaston to discuss a variance application for an addition to her home. 7. Professional Development Bob Watkins attended the spring conference of the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association. Mr. Watkins served on a panel discussing proffers. 8. Other Evan Wyatt continued work on the 1995 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District update. PC REVIEW: 06/07/95 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #004-95 SUE C. YOST LOCATION: This property is located at the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Route 522) and Cumberland Trail (Route 694). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 6 -A -75I PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• B2 (Business General); Land Use: vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Area); Land Use: vacant REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS: HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The drainfield site shown as an easement on the Minor Rural Subdivision plat for Sue Yost dated 5/10/95 has been approved by this office. COUNTY ENGINEER: The proposed subdivision is approved as submitted. A detailed review will be made at the time of site plan submittal. PLANNING AND ZONING: There is no master plan for this site and waiver of the master plan requirement is recommended. This parcel that is being divided from the larger parcel is zoned B-2. The larger remaining parcel is zoned RA. The remaining parcel has frontage on both North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) and Cumberland Trail Road (Rt. 694). The frontage on Cumberland Trail Road is only 80 feet in width. This will not allowed for further division of the remaining parcel utilizing only the Cumberland Trail Road frontage since the 250 foot width at the front setback line cannot be complied with. Page 2 Sue Yost Subdivision #004-95 A note should be placed on the plat to reflect this restriction. There does not appear to be any other problem with allowing this division. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR .TUNE 7, 1995 MTG: Approval with the requirement that all review agency comments be complied with. Holtzman Oil Company PIN: 6-A-751 Subdivision #004-95 :i 13 APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Ano pFVEt"v^r'1Ei� ^ rl 4' Date: �- _`�S Application # dQ Applicant/Agent: Address: ��P �7t�7t1 /�/f _ �7 t�f1•.���/n/ 2zto Al, cTT lili/nOC /C�ii E' 1/fI- Z 6,0/ Phone: 70 n!!27-7 _ 7-13-7 Owners name: d_ yeeT Address: Phone: Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: Contact Person: Phone: 70.E -6&-7-Z 5q Name of Subdivision: A/rAleege tf // / 00IJ CIT � Number of Lots / Total Acreage 7, ` 830 Property Location: ,1�/�tir j� (u,, > � djc -'.5-Z- Z- — A-.7aei7/ (Give State Rt.#, name, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District Property Identification Number (PIN)) 7�t�J G> �1i4�=� 75 cis Property zoning and present use: z Adjoining property zoning and use: Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes No What was the MDP title? Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) 7.75-30 Number and types of housing units in this development: Number 1V111q p7 ; Izt'y nolds_Store 3 _ i I l �l X11 Q �on1. :Ti,nbe/n Ri,lae i4 lA 4 (h: ./. I _ _ / , r - r'. It':;� \ I QPM I - /r C.i - ' / - RELAUIap1 Y\w dM1to // -,,1/l �I; " r ..,� �a✓ rn•wa1, Jd 4s Ac 70 ` I .../�jf e ,i lsuh \ NgNITY AIAP j E. 1'-21)00', (APPROVED BY Virginia Deportment o/ Health rZ C!r1 Date / Subdivision Administrator _ Vale Planning Commission Date Board of Supervisors Date OWNER'S CONSENT The above and foregoing Minor Subdivision of tt a land of SUE C. YOST as appears in the accompanying plat, is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors, and trustees, If any. L L�. NOTARY PUBLIC 1, , if ' ' / f`t/1 r :r; a Notary Public In and for the state of Virginia, at large, do hereby certify that whose name is signed to the foregainq Owner's Certircale, has acknowledged the some before me In my state. Given under my hand this day of 1995 My commission expires SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the land contained In this Minor Subdivislon Is the same land conveyrd to SUE C. YOSr by deed dated 4 March 1988, said deed recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 688 at Page 611. Tax Map 6 ((A)) Parcel 75 Douglas C. g e, L.S. / Zoned: RA Use: Vacant Tax Map 6 ((A)) Parcel 1511 Zoned ill Proposed Use: Convenience Center CERTIFICATE NVDATE: 10 MAY 199 1197 a igND S Final Plot for Minor Subdivision of the land of SUE C. YOST Gainesboro Magisterial District Frederick County; Virginia, 5 COVER SHEET MRS-4159.dwq Sheet I of 2— MARSH & IL.EGGE Land Surveyors. RUC. 139 North Osmervn street Whichester. virytnla 72601 (70J) 667-0468 ro+ (703) 667-0469 Va. Sec. Houte 694 Cumberland Trail Road N67.47'04 E 40' R/W 137.1 J' R=25. 80 R=511.70' L=42.11' 58 11. J4' 8•/1'58"c L=214.49 —41 SUE G YOST TM 6 ((A)) Pcl 75 Remaining Area=58.4829 Acres-+ (By Subtraction) y \ —JVJO' Springdale Subdivision Section I Well Lot �Emement \ Zoned: RA Use:/Residen tial II 1 Slle/ V1 r p rn SUE G YOST TM 6 ((A)) Pcl 75 Remaining Area=58.4829 Acres-+ (By Subtraction) y \ —JVJO' 1, \ UrolnReld k/Easement Well Lot �Emement \ �Reserve Droinfield\ 1 asa� \(N/F Yos t � m II 1 Slle/ V1 Ot � p rn T z 1 F, o V Tax Map 6 ((A)) NOTES Parcel 75 Zoned: RA 1. No title report furnished. Use: Vacant 2, Easements may exist that are not 7.7630 Acres \ shown on this plat. TM 6 ((A)) JI--- rods set of oil ro ert Pcl 75 I \ 480.54' 582'36'52'w / —265 / o tiff cae Tax Map 6 ((A)) p p y Parcel 75 I corners. Zoned: B2 Proposed Use: Convenience Center dl -L1 H pr�iL cl CEI? 11FICA I E 1197 Z DATE: 10 MAY 199 a 4 LINE TABL 56'42.09"E 129.7_0' 169'22`11"E IJ4.81` .17`47 41 "E _ 195.06` t9'27'OJ'IV _ 159.Si- Z7'46`45'N 16'26 07"IV 168.88 �2 GRAPHIC SCALD' 0 100 200 IVO ( IN user ) 1 Inah - 200 iL Final Plat for Minor Rural Subdivision of the land of SUE C. YOST Gainesboro Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia 5 Scale: 1"=200' 1 AIRS-415Rdwg She^t -2 vl MARSH & LEGGE Land Surveyors P.L.C. _ 199 NorthCameron Street W luchaler, V irginin 22601 (703) 667-0468 r, (703) 667-0469 —JVJO' UrolnReld k/Easement �Reserve Droinfield\ 1 asa� \(N/F Yos t —A -75H) Ilk V Tax Map 6 ((A)) NOTES Parcel 75 Zoned: RA 1. No title report furnished. Use: Vacant 2, Easements may exist that are not shown on this plat. JI--- rods set of oil ro ert Tax Map 6 ((A)) p p y Parcel 75 I corners. Zoned: B2 Proposed Use: Convenience Center dl -L1 H pr�iL cl CEI? 11FICA I E 1197 Z DATE: 10 MAY 199 a 4 LINE TABL 56'42.09"E 129.7_0' 169'22`11"E IJ4.81` .17`47 41 "E _ 195.06` t9'27'OJ'IV _ 159.Si- Z7'46`45'N 16'26 07"IV 168.88 �2 GRAPHIC SCALD' 0 100 200 IVO ( IN user ) 1 Inah - 200 iL Final Plat for Minor Rural Subdivision of the land of SUE C. YOST Gainesboro Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia 5 Scale: 1"=200' 1 AIRS-415Rdwg She^t -2 vl MARSH & LEGGE Land Surveyors P.L.C. _ 199 NorthCameron Street W luchaler, V irginin 22601 (703) 667-0468 r, (703) 667-0469 PC REVIEW: 06/07/95 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 005-95 LENOIR CITY COMPANY LOCATION: This property is located at the intersection of McGhee Road and Kentmere Road in the Stonewall Industrial Park. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 43-19-1 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: M1 (Light Industrial); Land Use: vacant and agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: M1 (Light Industrial); Land Use: vacant and agricultural REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS: PLANNING AND ZONING: There is an approved master plan for the Stonewall Industrial Park where this lot is located. Kentmere Court runs along the northwest side of this property. This street is built but has not yet been dedicated. A deed of dedication will be required for this action. Review agency comments are not considered necessary for this subdivision since all required agencies will be required to be involved in the site plan process. There are no known obstacles to the subdivision of this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR TUNE 7 1995 MTG• Approval as requested. APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION /01 FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Date: 5-10-95 Application # 669- Fee Paid$285.00 Applicant/Agent: Greenway, Inc. Address: 970 Baker Lane -- T.T-— hPstPr? Phone: 703-662-4185 Owners name: Lenoir City Company of Virginia Address: 30 Ricketts Drive Winchester, Va. 22601 Phone: 703-678-1110 Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: Lenoir City Company of Virgini Contact Person: Richard A. Edens Phone: 703-662-4185 Name of Subdivision: Stonewall Industrial Park Number of Lots 1 Total Acreage 3.486 acres Property Location: On northwest corner of intersection between McGhee Road (Route F-732) and Kentmere Road (Give State Rt.#, name, distance and direction from inte Magisterial District Gainesboro l - I! -- Property Identification Number (PIN)) 43-19-1 (-- ,-" EZ Property zoning and present use: Zoned: M-1, Use:Vacant/ Agricultural Adjoining property zoning and use:•onPd: M:1, Ts•V cant Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes X No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes X No What was the MDP title? Stonewall Industrial Park Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes X No If yes, specify what changes: Lot boundary and area enlarged to accomodate future development Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) 3.486 acres Number and types of housing units in this development: Number N/A Types N/A .j 9 FINAL 5UB1:211oH rL_AT OF A Pot TION OF THE LANA OF LENO(1Z GIT'( CCM PA N`( of VIMG1NlA LOT I6 STONEWALL INDUS-riziA L- PA IZ K GAINE9BORo(ForzAlEf�LTSToNEWALL) 171,TFLIGT - FREDE121GK COUNT'(, VA MA Z 1��5 ST. -7'a �E E 15;1-ra SToNEW LL 1N�U1T (AL PA FC Vie -IN I T-( M A GENTar.�I. Q.K. 96A L 6 : I ^ � Z000 ' P_ J OWNr--0'5 CERTIFICATE THI-AavvI- AHC,FOFLEGoING9UE:v1,/19roH 51FTHE LAN�oF LENo12oIT{GoMPAN( OF VIL!_ INIA, q5 APPF-A R5. OH THE gGcoMPAH-(ING PLATS i5• WITH THE FR:EECONSENT ANVIN ACe_oFtpANpE WITH THE D651RE5 OF THE UNPEFL!i1GN ED oWNE2 2 5, PF=DPILI E`.ToRs 0TIZU-wTEE9, IF ANY. alT'(/GOUNTi of GOAAI.AONWEAL-FH OF VIRGINIA THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WA�i AGKNOvYLEPGED gEFOICE ME THIS t7AY OF 17_ 13i MYGOL.tr..f/9ylON EXPI2E9 IV_ Nv7A¢Y PUEsLIL �iUfCVE'(oFK'S GER.TIFIGATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS SUE (7IVISIoI4 I�iA Po RTIoN -FTHE LANA CoNVEYeP To LENoiR. GIT'( ooMPAN( of VIFZGINIA gr DEED DATED JANUA;Cf I I%65 9F REGOFCp IH THE F;ZEDEiZIGK COUNT-( GIRG•UIT COURT cLEr-K's OFFI,:;B IN DEED 54AbK 341' AT PAGE Z'SS . H. 61rU�E EVENS. L-.9. A f PFoVA L5 FQEPE2IGK GoUNT ( iANITATION AUTHow-JT-( PLANNING COMMIS510N VA. VEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIOI.I SUBPIVIrsION ApGAlt4l5TPZAToFL. NOTES PA:CENT TAX PARCEL #43-17-1 -67.45 ACRES PER TAX IZECoRt7� GU2RENT LoN E : M- I , GU 22E NT USE VACANT/ AGFLIGULTLJFeAL Q_GREENWAY, INC. 970 Baker Lane. Winchester, Virginia 22603 703-662-4185 H. Bruce Edens, L.S. - President SURVEYING - DESIGNING - PLANNING E RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL •COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION TATE BAT15- PATE- PATE PATEDATE S),L"" OBD v Fi. g UCE EDENS Z No. 000162-8 t9� svtiz���¢ SHEET I of 4 A O / d / a 10 \ o �F NEW TAX k,(AP\-3-IV-43 A LOT i \ 3. 846 AGIZES \ � a V. 1' > Fay -ny7'G o< O s'S NT A� < o � y � J- 1. P. S. PAO Io' DRAINAGE t Q.0 Ji O� �O U Ti LI T•( EASEMENT / O H ERE g'I RESCICveD ALONG ALL LOT LINE5 SGA LE 1N FEET FINAL PLAT OF A PORTION of 7 E LA N v OF LENo(R CITY COMPANY OF VIFZGIN(A LoTI& - 5ToNEwALL- INDUSTRIAL FAP -'K CAIIJE5;Ewp,-(FORMEFL-Y-iTONEWALL f719TMe-T- FRED. G� VA . SCALE I DATE : N4AY z , I ->'!:)S GREENWAY, INC. 970 Baker Lane. Winchester, Virginia 22603 703-662-4185 H. Bruce Edens, L.S. - President SURVEYING - DESIGNING - PLANNING e RPSVENT1AL . AGRICULTURAL • COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL - CONSTRUCTION s 1-I OTF- 5 I. PS. • IRON PIN 9e PO -B • POIHT OF BEiI/JNING METES AND BOUNDS H O��q�►1.T Op D cJ�BRUEE DI�EENNS ri No. 000162-8 q:'U orrnttFi�Oi SHEET z of 4 eiLIIZVE DATA No DCLTA KAVIUS AMC TANGENT cH ol'LD I 15'o7'So" 9i0 ao' zl%.t9' IlO.z3' 33'ZS" E - Z10. SS Z Z4 -06'5Z" 7zc,oo' 4o3.o3 153.77' $ 36'03' S4'• E - 300. eo' 3 too'.Fy' 17" So 00' 67.94 00.41 S Z6' ZZ' 4-O' W - 77. 0q-' t 17' 19' Z.I" 73o, ao' ZV(. 17' f+L (,7 ' S b 0' o0' o0" W - ZOO I—' FINAL PLAT OF A PORTION of 7 E LA N v OF LENo(R CITY COMPANY OF VIFZGIN(A LoTI& - 5ToNEwALL- INDUSTRIAL FAP -'K CAIIJE5;Ewp,-(FORMEFL-Y-iTONEWALL f719TMe-T- FRED. G� VA . SCALE I DATE : N4AY z , I ->'!:)S GREENWAY, INC. 970 Baker Lane. Winchester, Virginia 22603 703-662-4185 H. Bruce Edens, L.S. - President SURVEYING - DESIGNING - PLANNING e RPSVENT1AL . AGRICULTURAL • COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL - CONSTRUCTION s 1-I OTF- 5 I. PS. • IRON PIN 9e PO -B • POIHT OF BEiI/JNING METES AND BOUNDS H O��q�►1.T Op D cJ�BRUEE DI�EENNS ri No. 000162-8 q:'U orrnttFi�Oi SHEET z of 4 The accompanying plat represents a division survey of a portion of the land conveyed to Lenoir City Company of Virginia by deed dated January 1, 1968 of record in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Deed Book 344 at Page 235. The said land fronts the northwest corner of the intersection of proposed Kentmere Road and proposed McGhee Road in Stonewall Industrial Park, lying within Gainesboro (formerly Stonewall) District, Frederick County, Virginia and is bounded as follows: Beginning at an iron pin set in the northwestern boundary of proposed McGhee Rd., said iron pin located 369.74' southwesterly along the arc from the centerline of proposed Kentmere Rd.; thence along new division lines through the land of Lenoir City Co. of Va. for the following two courses: N29°28'10"w - 519.62' to an iron pin set; thence N60°31'50"E - 264.83' to an iron pin set at a point on curve in the southwestern boundary of proposed Kentmere Rd; thence with the southwestern boundary of said road for the following three courses: along the arc of a curve to the left 219.19' (Radius = 830.00' - Chord = S40°33'25"E - 218.551) to an iron pin set at a point of reverse curvature of a curve to the right; thence along the arc of said curve 303.03' (Radius = 720.00' - Chord = S36°03'54"E - 300.801) to an iron pin set at a point of compound curvature of another curve to the right; thence along the arc of said curve 87.94' (Radius = 50.00' - Chord - S26°22'40'W - 77.04') to an iron pin set at a point of reverse curvature of a curve to the left and in the northwestern boundary of proposed SHEET 3 of �} McGhee Rd.; thence with the northwestern boundary of said road along the arc of said curve 281.17' (Radius = 930.00' - Chord = S68'06'08"w - 280.10') to the beginning. Containing. . . . . . . 3.846 Acres Surveyed. . . . . . . . May 2, 1995 UIi. BRUCE tDENS NO. 000162-8 O r�`�'D vlrsrilF�� SHEET 4cpF 4 PC REVIEW: 06/07/95 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #006-95 RT&T PARTNERSHIP LOCATION: This property is located on Valley Pike (Route 11 south), approximately .5 miles south of the intersection of Route 37 and Valley Pike. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-21) PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: B2 (Business General); Land Use: vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: B2 (Business General); Land Use: vacant; M2 (Industrial General); Land Use; business REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION• See attached letter dated May 12, 1995. SANITATION AUTHORITY: Water & sewer are available but not yet in service. FIRE MARSHAL: Specific fire & rescue issues will be addressed on site plan. COUNTY ENGINEER: We have no specific comments concerning the proposed 238 acre subdivision at this time. A detailed review will be made at the time of site plan submission. Consideration should be given to regional stormwater management rather that onsite determination Page 2 RT & T Partnership Subdivision #006-95 CITY OF WINCHESTER: Subdivider should evaluate potential impact of interchange redesign at Route 11 & Route 37 and consider benefits of extending a right-of-way to the western boundary so that a connection to the interchange on Route 651 could be made. PLANNING AND ZONING: There is an approved master plan for this site. The slope of the land on this property clearly indicates a need for very careful storm water management and control. This is recognized in the comments of both VDOT and the County Engineer. We concur with the regional concept for storm water management on this site. There does not appear to be any other problems with allowing this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR .TUNE 7 1995 MTG: Approval with the requirement that all review agency comments (sans City of Winchester) be complied with. Location Map for PIN: 75—A-21) RT&T Partnership SUB# 006-95 Edinburg Residency VDOT TE 1-703-984-5607 may '-,95 1 :10 NO -006 P-01 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 140a 1 OLD VALLEY PIKE DAVID R. GEHR P.O. BOX 278 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P.E. C0AMiSy10N1-.H EDINBURG, 22824.0278 AE510E1yrCNG1NEEA TELE(I0]1984.5804 May 12, 1995 FAX,%091964 5601 Mr. David M. Furstenau, L.S. Ref: Kernstown Business Park CIO Furstenau Surveying Route 11 4957 Craig Court Frederick County Stephens City, VA 22655 Dear Dave: As requested, we have signed and are returning the referenced development's final subdivision plat. We have no objections to the subdivision of Lot No. 9 as shown. However, all entrance design and drainage features must meet VDOT requirements if Prosperity Drive Is to be eligible for addition into the State's Secondary System. Also as pointed out during our review process of the Kernstown Business Park site plan, a detention basin may be required on Lot No. 1 to reduce drainage impacts to Route 11. 1 have attached copies of correspondence from our office relative to this matter. If you have any questions, please let me know, Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Trans. Permits & Subdivision Specialist Supervisor ItBClrf Enclosures xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff (w/ enclosures Mr. R. W. Watkins (w/ enclosures) r APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Application Date: Fee Paid Applicant/Agent: R T & T Partnership Address: Post Office Box 3243 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Phone: (703) 662-2270 Owners name: Address: R T & T Partnership Post Office Box 3243 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Phone: (70 3) 662-2270 Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: Thomas C. Glass Ralph Gregory Thomas C. Baker Contact Person: Thomas C. Baker Phone: (703) 662-2270 Name of Subdivision: xernstown RTncinpcc Park Number of Lots _ Total Acreage 29.6 Property Location: Route 1.1 South - North of Horton"s Nursery across from Miller Honda Dealership � mile south of Route 37 and Route 11 South (Give State Rt.#, name, distance and Magisterial District Back Creek Property Identification Number (PIN)) rection from intersection) Parcel 2D Tax Map' 75 C�' + Property zoning and present use: B-2 Zoning - Land vacate Adjoining property zoning and use: B-2 Zoning - East, South, North M-2 Zoning - West. use -East -Miller Auto Sales. West -Industrial Park, North -Vacate South-Horton's Nursery Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? YP_ X Mn If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes x No What was the MDP title? Kernstown Business Park (#003-91) Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No x If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) N/A Number and types of housing units in this development: Number N Types N/A !9 14 r- 1 NHL F'LH I SECTION I KERNSTOWN BUSINESS PRRK BACK CREEK DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAX MAP # 75 -A -2D ZONE 8-2 imp rnnnnnFpriAl APPROVED BY Frederick County Sanitation Authority__ -------- —Date— -- Planning Commission_ subdivision Administrator Date Virginia Department of Transportation Date OWNERS' CERTIFICATE The above and foregoing subdivision of the land of RT&T Partnership a Virginia Partnership, as appears in the accompanying plat, is with the consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned, owners, afo trustees if � a NOTARY PUBLIC a Notary Public in and for/ the Commonwealth of Virginia at large, do certify that and _. whose names are signed to the foregoingowners' certificate. have acknowledged the same before me in my state. Given under my hand this _i_a day of — 19 fj� My commission expires--ft,��r Surveyor's Certificate I hereby certify that the land contained in this subdivision is the same land conveyed to RT&T Partnership, a Virginia Partnership, by Deed Dated 15 October 1987, said Deed is recorded i the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederiq� Co�t��( Virginia in Deed Book 662 at Page 648. //// David M. Furstenau. L.S DATE: APRIL 28. 1995 FURSTENAU SURVEYING SCALE: STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 OWN. my: I OF 2 M � A� p slate 91 � 11 7 ect LAGE , Exit•79 �1j M 0 SITE o �P VICINITY MAP ' , 2000• APPROVED BY Frederick County Sanitation Authority__ -------- —Date— -- Planning Commission_ subdivision Administrator Date Virginia Department of Transportation Date OWNERS' CERTIFICATE The above and foregoing subdivision of the land of RT&T Partnership a Virginia Partnership, as appears in the accompanying plat, is with the consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned, owners, afo trustees if � a NOTARY PUBLIC a Notary Public in and for/ the Commonwealth of Virginia at large, do certify that and _. whose names are signed to the foregoingowners' certificate. have acknowledged the same before me in my state. Given under my hand this _i_a day of — 19 fj� My commission expires--ft,��r Surveyor's Certificate I hereby certify that the land contained in this subdivision is the same land conveyed to RT&T Partnership, a Virginia Partnership, by Deed Dated 15 October 1987, said Deed is recorded i the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederiq� Co�t��( Virginia in Deed Book 662 at Page 648. //// David M. Furstenau. L.S DATE: APRIL 28. 1995 FURSTENAU SURVEYING SCALE: STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 OWN. my: I OF 2 NO. RHD. DELTA RRC TAN. 1 25.00' 98054'44 - 43.16' 29.23' 2 25.00' 80000'00" 34.91' 20.98' 3 230.00' 90057'00" 365.10' 233.85' 4 50.00' 17°45'10" 15.49' 7.81' 5 55.00' 252054'10" 242.77' 74.46' 6 50.00' S5009'00" 48.13' 26.11' 7 170.00' 90057'00" 269.85' 172.84' POST B 8 0 RAILROAD R/W _ W �- N 48021'56"E 1251.71' Z= W= �mIN m mU-)Q�Z N REMAINING L POST 0 �O m ui N L. Q � v 0 31 M W m� W m o a 0 U a: Lo N d" � Q Z 24.873 ACRE. S-4-4009 - rl -W O PROSPEF rL 44°09', 5 319"� 531. 82, AREA TABULATION LOT I 2.380706 ACR. ROAD DED. 2.372689 ACR. REMAINING 24.873635 ACR. TOTAL 29.627030 ACR. 0 0 0 0 0 N R CHD. CHD. BRG. -i.00' S 85038'59"W 32.14' S 04053'39"E 327.95' S 89037'51"W 15.43' S 53001'56"N 88.48' S 64032'34"E 46.29' N 16034'51"E 242.40' N 89037'51"E J!)- tHRL POST PV cD t1I Q � U al � d N N v m 3 N Ln (n O Q m O� _rZ (V 25' DRAINAGE 8 UTILMES ESM'T- POST CD to Lo 0 d- �_ J = Q V) U W W Z g D � 1 0 _ 0 a U < 6 N V) rn �m 0 m I N H � -cr al 2.380706 9 J I O ACRES o 11J m �1 m I M O v �p to m (n J � Q W ` Lmfl I °d IP N 45007'16"E 302.22' z im LOT I Ln so' -cr al 2.380706 9 ACRES o m ^0) 5o• 9RL M _ c0 U PS W 2 02 a0 N U U N W � D � a V) M a u _�7_ g�� o 2 0 - 0 P 5136° 8. W 286.00!` If 37f 'S 35.p6'21' W - - . __. 1942Z E� pIKE 1 ROUTE U. S. 184. wim FINAL PLAT SECTION I KERNSTOWN BUSINESS PARK BACK CREEK DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA FURSTENAU SURVEYING STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 DATE: APRIL 28, 1995 SCALE: I" = 200' DWN. ■Y: 2 OF 2 TO: FROM: RE: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 Planning Commission Members Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directo�� Coventry Courts; Revised request for Exemption from Subdivision Ordinance Requirements for curbs, gutters and sidewalks DATE: May 25, 1995 At their meeting of May 24, 1995, the Board of Supervisors considered the request of Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam for an exemption from Subdivision Ordinance requirements 144-17, L and 144-18, A which require curbs gutters and sidewalks. The applicant now proposes to place curb and gutter along Farmington Boulevard, and a sidewalk along one side. The ordinance would require sidewalks on both sides of a collector road and on all roads within a subdivision containing lots of 12,000 square feet or less. The proposal also involves a wider pavement section along the cul-de-sac which would be for a bike lane. Staff feels that a while a bike lane on a collector road would serve a useful function, a bike lane along the relatively short cul-de-sac in this development serves little purpose. The traffic that would be present on this road segment hardly warrants a bike lane. Staff's position remains that the circumstances surrounding this development do not pose a hardship and therefore our recommendation that the requested exemption be denied, remains the same. Please let me know if there are any questions. KCT/dc 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 7031/678-0682 FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I lV � RE: Public Hearing: Proposed Amendment to the Historic Area Overlay Zone DATE: May 25, 1995 It has occurred to the department staff that this proposed amendment may not adequately address the concerns for future development within the Historic Area Overlay Zone. Staff requests that the Planning Commission table this proposed amendment. Presently, the proposed amendment establishes guidelines for new commercial construction. Staff feels that the guidelines should also address new residential construction. An example that has been brought to our attention is the possibility of garden apartment construction within a Historic Area Overlay Zone. As currently written, the guidelines would not apply to this new apartment construction. We feel that developments that may impact the historic area should be encouraged to exercise the design guidelines. Therefore, the staff would wishes to revise the guidelines to incorporate both commercial and residential construction. I feel that this additional time will enable staff and the Historic Resources Advisory Board to develop design guidelines that will be more effective in protecting and enhancing the historic integrity of Frederick County historic areas. 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Guidelines for New Commercial Construction in the Historic Area Overlay The following guidelines are hereby adopted by the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board ("HRAB") to assist its consideration of applications for new commercial construction in Historic Area Overlay ("HA") zones under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. These guidelines should not be viewed as a means of dictating a specific design response to a given design problem, nor should they be seen as prohibiting any particular approach. New and untried approaches to common design problems associated with historic sites and structures should not be rejected merely because of originality. Each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis, within the framework set out here. For purposes of these guidelines, the term "designated site" shall mean that site, structure, or other feature, which has been designated as a historic resource by the Board of Supervisors, in its application of a HA zone on any property or properties within the County. "Commercial construction" includes, for example, all non-residential construction such as retail stores, office buildings, automobile service stations, restaurants of all types, churches and non-profit organization facilities. These design elements are based on the Rural Landmarks Survey Report, Frederick County, Virginia, Phases 1--111, 1988-1992. This survey documented buildings in Frederick County that are at least 50 years old and have retained their architectural integrity. This standard is used by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the U.S. Department of Interior to determine whether or not a structure is considered to be "contributing" to the historic character of a community. The term "contributing buildings", as used here, refers to those buildings that have been identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report and may contribute to designs for new commercial construction. All surveys were prepared according to the standards established by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. All applications for new construction must comply with the requirements of applicable zoning regulations prior to consideration by the HRAB. Purpose and Intent Statement of Purpose: The purpose of these Design Criteria is to insure that new commercial construction located within the Historic Area Overlay (HA) are compatible with the character of the historic area. The purpose is also to establish a common commercial identity among these new buildings through shared design principlcs. Guidelines for New Commercial Construction in the Historic Area Overlay May 25, 1995 Page 1 Statement of Intent: It is the intent of these Criteria to : 1. Accommodate and encourage economic growth that will both maximize direct county revenues and minimize the indirect costs of eroding the historic character of the HA; 2. Protect private property values and related public investment from the detrimental impacts of carelessly planned new construction; Encourage creative designs while discouraging uniform trademark architecture that if built in the HA would create strip developments incompatible with existing structures; 4. Maintain the image of the HA as seen from its most traveled roads to benefit residents, attract tourists, and interest potential employers; 5. Encourage new commercial developments to produce contemporary architecture compatible with the traditional building forms of the HA; 6. Provide for an appropriate and attractive yet diverse mix of new construction that relate to one another in a coherent way by guiding them toward shared design principles without imposing any specific architectural style. Architectural Style and Form Criteria These criteria shall be followed to the greatest extent possible, as determined by the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), given the physical nature of a specific site and its intended use. Although achieving compliance with all these criteria is desired, the HRAB may use its discretion in determining an application's degree of compliance, as long as a proposed design is consistent with the purpose and intent of these criteria. Building Design New construction should not create an appearance with no historical basis. New commercial construction should represent the era in which it is built, yet be designed in a manner that complements the existing HA character. No single architectural style is mandated. However, historic design elements of contributing buildings found in Frederick County should be the basis for proposed designs. Direct copying of buildings is discouraged as are standardized building Guidelines for New Commercial Construction in the Historic Area Overlay May 25, 1995 Page 2 designs found throughout areas outside of Frederick County. 2. Introduction of design concepts foreign to Frederick County is inconsistent with the County's architectural character. 3. New commercial building designs should have roof designs that are characteristic of Frederick County. Duplication of the traditional roof shapes, pitches, and materials on new construction is one way of making the new structures more visually compatible. Steeply pitched roofs are generally found in contributing buildings. 4. Side and rear walls which face open areas should be designed with as much attention to detail as the primary facade. New commercial construction should maintain a scale which is compatible with adjacent buildings and other existing structures in the HA. 6. The Board is conscious of 20th century infrastructure requirements, but such items as electrical meters and transformers, HVAC equipment and solid waste management equipment should be visually and acoustically screened from public view. Building Siting 1. Buildings should be designed and sited to reduce the need for topographic modifications to the site. If buildings must be sited in areas of significant slope, they should make use of multiple stories and multi-level access to retain the natural topography of the site. 2. All new construction should attempt to protect and preserve significant archaeological resources. The front of a building should face the main thoroughfare in the HA. Building elevations facing other public right of way should include the principal design features and materials used on the front of the building, so not to look like the back of the building. Guidelines for New Commercial Construction in the Historic Area Overlay May 25, 1995 Page 3 Height No structure should be so located or of such height, as to unreasonably affect protected viewsheds around designated sites_ Traditionally, the height of buildings in HA is no more than two stories (approximately 25 feet). New commercial construction should be consistent with this pattern. Parking Location Maintain the integrity of the area's historic resources by minimizing the dominance of the automobile. Parking facilities should be placed in locations which de-emphasize their use, and emphasizes the main structure. This may be accomplished by exercising site layout options and landscaping techniques which attempt to camouflage the parking facilities. Building Materials 1. The predominant building materials for commercial buildings in historic areas are wood and stucco. Brick and stone were also common building materials to a lesser extent. The same material was typically applied to all sides of all stories of a building. Horizontal wood siding, stucco, red clay brick, or limestone should be encouraged for cladding on new commercial buildings. 2. Historic roofing materials, such as standing seam metal and slate, which are present in historic areas are encouraged. These materials continue to be widely available today. 3. Building colors should compliment the colors existing in the historic areas. Landscaping The use of appropriate landscaping (plant materials) native to or traditionally used in Frederick County will blend new construction with the surrounding historical area landscapes. The use of species that are winter hardy and drought tolerant is encouraged. 2. An effort should be made to screen the rear areas of a developed site from the adjacent properties so far as it may reasonably be possible to do so. The use of screening materials, such as fencing, or vegetation plantings are encouraged. 3. Lighting should be of such construction, materials, height, and brightness, as not to adversely effect the designated site. 4. Maintenance of the landscaping should be considered when choosing the type of landscaping and screening to be used. The use of an attractive landscaping plan, accented by hardy plants, will create a pleasing commercial environment. Guidelines for New Commercial Construction in the Historic Area Overlay May 25, 1995 Page 4 Signage 1. The location, design, configuration, materials and color of all proposed signs and associated structures should be in character with the historic and scenic settings of the HA. These signs should not visually dominate buildings or sites. 2. Free-standing and projecting wall signs will be limited to 25 feet in height, and a sign surface area of 50 square feet. 3. One free-standing or projecting sign will be permitted per parcel. 4_ Wall signs will be limited to 20 feet in height above grade, and one sign per parcel frontage. Guidelines for New Commercial Construction in the Historic Area Overlay May 25, 1995 Page 5 P/C Review Date: 06/07/95 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #005-95 ROY M. WHITE COTTAGE OCCUPATION WOODWORKING/MAKING FURNITURE LOCATION: This property is located at the corner of Round Hill Road (Rt. 803) and Cather Lane (Route 711). The address is 995 Round Hill Road. (Previously Joe Bayliss Grocery) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 52-A-140 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:. Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Land Use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Land Use - residential and agricultural PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation for woodworking and furniture production. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: No objection to a conditional use permit for this property. However, prior to operation of business the existing entrance should be overlaid with a minimum 1.5 Type SM -2A asphalt concrete to ensure safe egress and ingress. A permit must be secured prior to placement of the asphalt. Should use of the property expand in the future beyond what is indicated in the application, the entrance may have to be upgraded to minimum commercial design standards. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 306, Use Group F (Factory & Industrial) of the BOCA National Building Code 1993. Other codes that apply are Title 24 Code Page 2 White CUP #005-95 of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. NOTE: Change of use permit is required and building shall not be used until inspected for code compliance and new certificate of use and occupancy. Fire Marshal: Applicant must comply with applicable sections of the Virginia State Fire Prevention Code when storing any flammable finishing materials. Health Denartment: Per Mr. White, the structure will be used for his 3 bedroom residence and the woodworking business with himself being the only employee. There is a 3 bedroom permit on file, therefore we are giving approval if there is no increase in water usage and a suitable water supply is obtained. Planning Department: This request can be considered as a cottage occupation since the applicant intends to live in the structure where he wants to conduct the woodworking and furniture making business. This structure was previously used as a combination residence and country store. Since this location is a considerable distance from any other residence, it does not appear that it would have any significant impact on the neighborhood if properly controlled. The Health Department comment that they are "giving approval if there is no increase in water usage and a suitable water supply is obtained" needs to be addressed. Applicant advises that the Health Department approved a new well site and that he intends to have a new well drilled so that he has an adequate and reliable water supply. This location has high visibility along Round Hill Road and it is important that materials associated with this business not be allowed in an outside storage area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR JUNE 7,1995: Approval with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No open outside storage is permitted unless screened, in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. 3. All work shall be accomplished inside of the completely enclosed building. 4. Prevent any dust or noise pollution from emanating into the neighborhood. 1 14 2�B 15 4c 2� 16 22 7 2�0 17 N c� 24 �� � 14 -��� pke eS�Pr�( HOOP ��\ 13 s oa q7`L18 '41` SOv� �8C TTI CO T79 K r r8 20 i9 3 8 21 q 2 369 348 Sherwood lane Rt. 827 I B / c3 / 619 69 9 2 AJ32 ootr �p 71 246 1 y i Rt.j 92 i. ou"cf BM :• fit 1� WESTERN OUNDHILL Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: �o rN , (, 1� , �9,- ADDRESS: `.� �j r u "S i � O � �Q S J e- J A- TELEPHONE �� tiz - 6 - I :� �.f o 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: C N4;•r, �]7- C- 'ZZ kk 1,,0,0\ ; sS 3. The property is located at: include the route number of your 5 9 90\.: -d-D "W.A --�� (please give exact directions and road or \street) (-iz-� 8 o -�) 4. The property has a road frontage of y31 feet and a depth of ) q -Is feet and consists of . 7acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by C; ,;�y as evidenced by deed from 730ss�\ t� "'i � � s s recorded (previous owner) in �ee� book no. �on page 1 "7 as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. S� ccGc (� �ecc j �fC Magisterial District Current Zoning 'z A 7. Adjoining Property: ZONING <,Q USE North East South ;!_ i;`J -,y C: ' West � 'J i ZONING <,Q 8. The type of use proposed before completing) is (consult with the Planning Dept. �zk� �4�) Arf�-%W-c 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 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 -70 w�i`'., ri�yn.' .J'C'L L. �.i!_t, i•r, J. Address I C .S � i--. i` (` Property ID# Address Property ID# s ` ` �'} eC, CCS C, cl % Address 5 S: Property ID# ((r� J 0ti Address Property ID# O -C) -Z 7 Address Property ID# Address Property -70 w�i`'., ri�yn.' .J'C'L L. �.i!_t, i•r, J. 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 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. (TI -76z, 0 ME TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: P/C review date: 06/07/95 BOS review date: REZONING APPLICATION 002-95 FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY To Rezone 3.4087 Acres From RA (Rural Area) To B2 (Business General District) LOCATION: The property is located on Macedonia Church Road (Route 642) approximately 1800' from the intersection of Route 37. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-1-A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Area); present use: elevated water storage tank ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Area); Land Use: residential and vacant. B2 (Business General); Land Use: commercial PROPOSED USE: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Headquarters. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to rezoning of this property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Fourth Edition for review. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: This rezoning will have no negative impact on Fire & Rescue resources. Page 2 Sanitation Authority Rezoning #002-95 County Engineer: This rezoning is approved as submitted. We understand that parcel A will be rezoned from RA to B2. Parcel B has already been zoned B2. We further understand that a boundary line adjustment will be made on Parcel B to reduce the site. PLANNING: Location: The property is located within the Urban Development Area and is in close proximity to an interstate 81 interchange area. The parcel is adjoined on two sides by B-2 (Business General) Zoning and is the site of the recently constructed water storage tank. Site Suitability: The site contains no environmental features as defined by the County Zoning Ordinance. The parcel is adjoined on two sides by existing B-2 Zoning. Impacts: Three and four tenths acres of B-2 Zoning could contain as much as 72,500 square feet of retail space, and would be projected to generate in excess of 1,000 trips per day or over 100 trips during a peak hour. The Sanitation Authority proposes to construct three buildings on the site totaling under 10,000 square feet. The buildings consist of a 5,100 sf. administrative building, a 1,500 sf. maintenance building, and a 3,200 sf. garage/warehouse building. While the Authority has not proffered these uses, plans are far enough along where the possibility of an alternate use of the site is very remote. The anticipated trip generation would be a fraction of the potential maximum for B-2 Zoning. Staff feels that the traffic generated would not have a significant negative impact on the area. Based on the nature of the use, monetary proffers to fire and rescue are inappropriate. Summary Given the adjoining zoning, and the location of the parcel, staff feels that potential negative impacts of the proposed rezoning are minimal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 06\07\95 MEETING: Approval 12 78 2 pts. 78 n+. _O \ It J � 90 , 89A i ,. 84 Frederick County Sanitation Authority Rezoning #002-95 PIN: 75-1-A %A�\w►., 5MY ©®o ovaoeo©o Frederick County Sanitation Authority Rezoning #002-95 PIN: 75-1-A AMENDMENT FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ACTION: PLANNING COMMISSION June 7, 1995 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AMENDMENT FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING DISTRICT MAP #002-95 of FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY WHEREAS, Rezoning Application #002-95 of Frederick County Sanitation Authority to rezone 3.4087 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General District), located on Macedonia Church Road (Route 642) and designated with PIN 75-1-A in the Shawnee Magisterial District, was submitted for consideration; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 7, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on July 12, 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this 12th day of July, 1995. Richard G. Dick Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. Jimmie K. Ellington James L. Longerbeam Robert A Sager A Copy Attest John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY PROPERTY Shawnee District IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. The Winchester Towers 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 • Fax; 70.3-61�.5-049.3 150C Olde Greenwich Drive.. Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 703-898-2115 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY II. INTRODUCTION III. PLANNING ANALYSIS • Site Suitability • Adjoining Properties • Zoning Review IV. TRAFFIC V. SEWAGE VI. WATER VII. DRAINAGE VIII. SOLID WASTE IX. HISTORIC SITES X. COMMUNITY FACILITIES • Education • Emergency Services • Parks and Recreation • Other XI, ENVIRONMENT XII. FISCAL XIII.OTHER APPENDIX F>C>S>A PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA APRIL 1995 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT for Frederick County Sanitation Authority Property I. Summary The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to evaluate the above referenced project as required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This document is prepared in support of and in preparation to rezone the referenced property from present Rural Areas (RA) to Business General (B-2). The property is suited for Business General (B-2) zoning and is surrounded on two sides of road frontage B-2 zoned land. There is a positive fiscal impact. Current zoning requirements allow for adequate measures to provide for a separation of uses through distance buffers and vegetative screens that would mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding properties. II Introduction The 3.3943+/- acre property of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). is located just east of I-81, south of the intersection of I-81 and Route 37, along the east side of Route 642. The property currently is the site of the FCSA water storage tank. The parcel is identified as tax parcel 75-((1))-A in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is currently zoned Rural Areas (RA). Business General (B-2) zoning is planned for the property. The property is located in the Urban Development Area and is part of an interchange business area and is along a major transportation corridor. A preliminary site development evaluation indicates that this site can support commercial uses. A site development plan is prepared for the FCSA administrative and maintenance facilities. This rezoning is presented to allow the entire property of FCSA to be zoned B-2 and to allow the planned FCSA administrative and maintenance facilities. F>C>S>A PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA APRIL 1995 I11. Planning Analysis Site Suitability - The property has no site specific development limiting factors. The property appears well suited for B-2 zoning use development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 47 as Berks channery silt loam.. Prime Agricultural Soils.- The property does contain prime agricultural soils as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Slopes - There are no steep slopes on this property. The topography is ideally suited for commercial type development. Slopes generally range from 2% to 7%. Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property. The property is generally well drained and has no low lying wet areas that wetland vegetation that indicates the presence of a wetland area. Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property. Flood Plain - The property is not located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plain as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map number 510063- 00200B of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Boundary map. Adjoining Properties - Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties. The primary impact concern on adjoining properties is the change of use from open, rural land to a commercial/administrative/office setting. The impacts of the allowed uses on the surrounding uses is reduced through existing zoning and planning, distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations. A building setback is required; and, in addition, a maximum distance buffers are �. required. These required planning and zoning setbacks and buffers are required to reduce adjoining property impacts.The adjoining property to the north is rural, open landand zoned RA and B-2. To the east is land zoned RA with a single family home. To the south is land zoned B-2 and RA with commercial and institutional land uses; and, to the west is Interstate 81 and Route 642. F>C>S>A PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA APRIL 1995 Zoning Review - The property is currently zoned Rural Areas (RA) allowing by right a variety of uses including five_ large lot housing units as well as agricultural uses. Agricultural uses are not restricted with setback, parking, screening and buffering restrictions. Under the Business General (B-2) zoning regulations a variety of office and business/commercial and retail uses are permitted. The planned FCSA facility is permitted under the B-2 zoning. The impacts of the General -Business (B-2) uses on the surrounding residential uses is greatly reduced through existing zoning distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations. IV. Traffic Impacts Traffic impacts are negligible for this property. Impacts of vehicular access and turning movements on the adjoining properties is slight considering the close -by interstate interchange and existing connection to Route 642. The 3.3943 acres to be rezoned B-2 will result in a low number of trips per weekday of traffic. The site is ideally suited for access and is a short distance from the interstate interchange. V. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems associated with this project. Sewage service to this site is provided by Frederick County Sanitation Authority. VI. Water Supply Impacts There are no water supply or transmission problems with this property. Water service is under the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. F>C>S>A PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA APRIL 1995 VII. Drainage Facility Impacts Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal or no site drainage impacts. The proposed site development plan for the planned FCSA administrative and maintenance facilities includes a storm water management pond. Predevelopment runoff rates will be maintained using recognized storm water management standards. VIII. Solid Waste Cost There are no solid waste collection and disposal impacts. IX. Historic Impacts There are no structures currently located on this property of significance. A review of the National Register, the Virginia Landmarks Register and The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are no known historic structures on this property. X. Community Facilities Education - This project will generate no school children and therefore have no effect on educational cost in Frederick County. Parks and Recreation - This project would result in no impact on Parks and Recreational facilities. Emergency Services Cost - There are no additional fire, rescue or sheriff facilities anticipated with the development of the property using B-2 type uses. Fire protection is available from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire Company. The planned B-2 rezoning will have all required site development standards required by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no fire protection problems associated with this property. All hydrants and fire protection measures will be installed when the property is developed. Rescue services are provided by the Stephens City Fire Company. F>C>S>A PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA APRIL 1995 Sheriff Department services protection will be required by this facility. Routine patrols of the area should suffice for the majority of time and materials necessary to cover this property. M. Environmental Impacts There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activityincluding run off sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. A minor increase in run off quantity and a decrease in quality is probable from this development. The effects on the down -stream impoundment and stream are minimal and in accordance with local and state regulations. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for security and business use. These should be closely controlled during planning stage to minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent residential structures and impacts on the traveling public. XII. Fiscal Impacts Fiscal impacts for the property are determined based upon the fiscal impact model prepared by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development staff. The fiscal impact model results are attached in the appendix of this report XIII. Other This planned zoning change would create a positive fiscal impact as compared to the existing zoning. There are no known other impacts. F>C>S>A PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA APRIL 1995 APPENDIX 1. FREDERICK COUNTY IMPACT MODEL REPORT OU-i'PUT MODULE __ Fire Department Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation TOTAL FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contributions $550.43 NOTES: Impact Model Run Date: 4/19/95 EAW FCSA Rezoning: Assumes 64,083 square feet of retail on 3 acres zoned from RA to 6,2. Net ------------------------ Creo., .jr ------ Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net caaL r Costs $50 $313 $0 $203 $0 $o $114,366 $0 $0 K U.79 11�Q $252 ----------- ----------------------- $1.711,485 --------- $121,477 - $0 $550.43 NOTES: Impact Model Run Date: 4/19/95 EAW FCSA Rezoning: Assumes 64,083 square feet of retail on 3 acres zoned from RA to 6,2. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff �ZoningAmendme umber �?� S Date ReceivedS IJ BOS Hearing Date r PC Hearing Date./ 7 The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 23 Court Square, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: kt�EPT k we Address:2CO 1J, Telephone: 703 - - l 2. Representative: Telephone: 70-3 - &&Z - 3. Owner: Name: C Address: RG- 6OX' 618 Telephone: 0--3 !2 The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: tfpk--�'tc4 civ"J-fl �TroN floe tT� 4. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed from to B - Z S. Current Use of the Property: \/Ar-Ar,J T- th ATGl� 1 T 4E- 6. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE - s - (f A)) -- a7 e- "Ocn-( 75 - X /6)) -- i 1 �A&C4ArN 7 25 ( 6)) - It C cfpm Mme; m - ZONING RMOCZ54 In. T�A KA -5-7- 7 -Z7 �-Z 7. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): \/A , 5EL: 'CT E (p(4 -. - Per k1P'TE:2. 'G to � 7?NY,) V-t.oc�nCfJ , A &-)(i mma-q I boa' OZoA. � I�tC D -E- IZll '3'7 _ 13 8. Parcel Identification: 14 Digit Tax Parcel Number: %!Jf;,O 00(. 9. Magisterial District: '5fAWi,,iEC 10. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned. Total Area: 3.4087 Acres The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted: -3.487 Acres Rezoned from ;ZA- to 13"Z. Acres Rezoned from to Acres Rezoned from to Acres Rezoned from to 11. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed: Conveyed from: :5�4�1! 1pjc-, Deed Book Number ' -T Pages_ QGF e) 12. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses. 13. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Plat Deed to property Statement verifying taxes paid JJIA Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement t/ Proffer Statement r,1 R 14 TA)c e-)Ctp; 14. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my(our) knowledge. Applicant: Owner: Date: nc;� I ) — / ! tj 0 15 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land proposed to be rezoned will be notified of the public hearing. For the purposes of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property or any property directly across a road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 14 -digit property identification number which may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Department. Name Address and Property Identification 1 Address: 3Z -7(a UT1) +4 Property ID: � � 6002 2. Address:1 ZCo �i C: `i t�4� E- I Property ID: - 5-C)pp ACp 3. A67-AfI= CfiElSI iA"i Address: PC) _ P-A-'-r,C �3Z i,p W I n) Gc-t G77 Property ID: A70� Qr L Address: 60- (c 2-0-34 Property ID: 5. c.-E�44r,� 1AI Address: -�P� '� Ey lot Ke U-ae- Alf t�� �ZfaGZ roperty ID: 6 Address: Property ID: 7. Address: Property ID: $• Address: Property ID: 9. Address: Property ID: 17 FREDERICK C0 - e"` eP s,. •a-I•t-cz 63 fs„u-u1• e`' IP � msENr T IOA9117�n 0 5� , �' /• IMSffiT 754 10 90 ` 9+ SITE S \ yaytie 67A i f r -re ' \` / 14 'J7•y. /�� 86O 19 r r 96 I 87C {87B 84 !I - tQ j i21 / 4C 86 r. 0o°au —� �9Br ;eAR7onvlue /ar P 26 d60 o m o� 27,1 78Ar 4rro. �`a 78879 :' 7 /// a 78 I' -3E-1 _ �r SEa /:y / I 'II IINSfAT 7SB ! lot ` 111h � I III. I `J,f T� 63 PIMP /// / / ar� ��/ 7sa • � los f ! S /31 i •// .� / INSEH/SSE �i��/ / .. .! 52 / N6EHT 119 \ 53A ' �� j � � ��// / //��./ • �//fig � � � -\ \ ea U 72 DI-TRIC.T OPEOUON -_ j• — I. �.V�, �... --'- .- i" 0 a OX 7 t,rOCJ "'� n 3IS D£�5, itida this /r1,Z dayof �_ r and b:=+;fjan SHIHO. INC„ a Virginia corpo oY tion,` Dart, h4r>inaftar called the Grantor, and SANIT:,TION :_�:'HORITY, a Virginia corporation cr;a niLiri .end zxi:;'.ing und=r tha provisions of tho Virginia .- ..-_ 15.1-1239, sea., Code 72 as amended), or the other part, hereinafter calla~ tb� Grantee, WITIT ESSETH : That for and in consideration of tha au= of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid and other valuable consideration, receipt vhereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor doas grant and convey, with General Warranty and with English Covtinanta of Title, unto the Grantee, in fee simple, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges, appurtenances and improvements thereunto belonging, all of those two (2) certain parcels of land lying and being situate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, designated as Parcel A and Parcel B, containing 3.4087 Acres and 4.5913 Acres, respectively, as shown on the plat and 111r 7 of Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., dated recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of ?rederlck County, Virginia, in Deed Book 3.15,, at Page 184; and the sane realty a c _o,_ -= Conveyed tc the Grantor __ _ . bdeed _roa Herbert E. Ratliff, et ux, dated N.av o, 1938, aad duly recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Gook, 580, at ;33. A reference to the e __es. _ deed r_n? and to _c_`erences contained therein is here ..-'_e `,- i currher itnG more particular description of the reelty hereby conveyed. ""is conveyance is made �r^sect to ._ii 7 _a-ble restrictive covenant, and rsc.e-, _ Yd �Y _ �2 a' S -+'fes 4"YW Y"i--'.��Y -,_ _ Y _ .. _ ;��� �(•,� r ,'�t FIRM, 1sA� Ox r.4 .�`iF ._ JV { ri LI � 1 a .. . ac Y 1 ... .. .. .. -_ - ,11:.' :_cs `\ 'SEAL) __esidant T: ^going instrument <f •-.:':lowledged beforx -I,! tail 02AIL day of 1990, by David B. Holliday, as Prasi2aat of Shiho, Inc or behalf of said Corporation. My commission expires /I IQu ,/- /!? `ARGIN A: FREDER COU.W, , SCT. This instrument lig was pr--oddwcnd to me on the vaand with certificate f nt Thereto annexed was admittod to record. Tax imposed bj ec. 53-54.1 of 5 and 58-54 have ti CLERK Notary Public l �.2 �� 1 eouK 315 racE, 183 - � o \ a :U v7 W PARCEL ® +v4Y \ I N m 3.4087AC. \ �. o N Z N 50045'W •0� 500.00' o w OD W C O N to PARCEL ® ey oU Id 1 4.5913 AC Z ` > • O in F- Co J Q M M Q I > _ S 50'45' E— 5 00.00 N SO'45' W' 1 OTHER LAND Tho above Plat i9 a Survey of Two pnroels of the Land conveyed to S. L. Shackelford by Doed dated 2 December 1936 in Deed Book: 172 page 575. The Said Two Parcels front the Southeaatorn Boundary Lines of Rt. No. 642, in Shawnee District, Frederick County, virginia=