PC 05-03-95 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Old Frederick County Courthouse
Winchester, Virginia
MAY 3, 1995
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Meeting Minutes of April 5, 1995 ............................ A
2) Bimonthly Report ..................................... B
3) Committee Reports .......................................
4) Citizen Comments ..................................... D
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Rezoning Application #001-95 of Wayne R. Ridgeway to rezone 2.047 acres from
RA (Rural Area) to 133 (Industrial Transition). This property is located in the
Gainesboro District and is identified as P.I.N. 42-A-249 .
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................ E
6) Conditional Use Permit #004-95 of Roger L. Gardner for an automotive repair
shop without body repair. This property is located in the Gainesboro District and
is identified with P.I.N. I1 -A -24E .
(Mr. Miller) ......................................... F
7) Renewal of the 1995 Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The
renewal of the Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District will preserve
approximately 14,500 acres of property within the Back Creek Magisterial
District and the Opequon Magisterial District.
(Mr. Wyatt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G
2
8) 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.
(Mr. Wyatt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H
9) 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.
(Mr. Wyatt) .........................................I
10) 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.
(Mr. Wyatt) ......................................... J
OTHER
11) 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 in located in the Stonewall District and is identified as PIN 86-A-20.
(Mr. Wyatt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K
12) Revised Master Development Plan #002-95 of Coventry Courts. The applicants
are proposing to develop 14.52 acres for single family housing. This property
is located in the Shawnee District and identified as PIN 55-A-185.
(Mr. Tierney) ........................................ L
13) Request pertaining to exemption from Subdivision Ordinance requirements Section
144-17. L and Section 144-18.A curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
(Mr. Tierney) ....................................... M
14) Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia
on April 5, 1995.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present 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; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro
District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon
District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen
at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto,
Winchester City Liaison.
ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District
Planning Staff present: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; W.
Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; Eric
Lawrence, Planner I; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES - MEETINGS OF MARCH 1, 1995 & MARCH 15 1995
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker, the
minutes of March 1, 1995 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made
by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of March 15, 1995 were
unanimously approved as presented.
2
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's
information.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee - 3/23/95 Mtg.
Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed the sign overlay district. Mr.
Wyatt said that the DRRS will present a draft of the Sign Overlay District to the
Commission for their meeting of April 19 for informal discussion.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee
Mrs. Copenhaver, reported that the CPPC has set a public meeting for the
Round Hill Community Center for May 8, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. Mrs. Copenhaver said that
the committee will meet with the residents of the area to get their input on sewer,
development, industry, etc.
Historic Resources Advisory Board - 3/21/95
Mr. Tierney said that the HRAB finalized their recommendations for
guidelines for new construction in Historic Overlay Zones.
Economic Development Commission
Mr. Romine reported that the Local Industry Committee had their regular
meeting. Mr. Romine said that the duty of this committee is to call on local industry to
determine needs and help find solutions. He added that this committee consists of retired
area businessmen.
M
Winchester Planning Commission 3/14/95
Mr. Shickle reported that the City Planning Commission tabled the
Winchester Medical Center's rezoning request. Mr. Shickle said that this item was tabled
to give the Commissioners more time to review a lot of informational material, not because
of issues related to the interchange on Route 37.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Conditional Use Permit #003-95 of Raymond Bailey for an automobile garage without body
repair. This property is located at 302 Poorhouse Road and is identified with PIN 52-A-71
in the Gainesboro District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller said that automobile repair without body repair is permitted in
the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District with an approved CUP. He said that the applicant
proposes to construct a building on an existing concrete pad where there previously was a
structure. Mr. Miller said that the structure will have high visibility in what is basically
a residential area. He suggested that because of the high site visibility and the
configuration of the neighborhood, that vehicles awaiting repair should be very limited or
screened from public view.
Mr. Raymond Bailey, the applicant, was present to answer questions. In
regards to an underground tank located at the rear left corner of the concrete pad, Mr.
Bailey said that the tank was existing when he bought the property and -he does not use it.
Mr. Bailey said that he has filled the tank with sand.
Mr. Bailey said that he planned to place a steel two -bay structure on the
existing 30' X 60' concrete pad, the same size as the pad. Mr. Bailey said that he
understood the proposed conditions to his permit and could work within those conditions.
Chairman DeHaven called for public input and the following citizens came
forward to speak in opposition:
Mr. Everett Bowers, resident at 216 Poorhouse Road, presented a petition
with 16 signatures of neighbors who were opposed to the Conditional Use Permit. Mr.
Bowers said that the neighbors were in opposition because the road was narrow and unsafe,
4
and the garage would be detrimental to property values and the appearance of the area.
Mr. Glen Richman, adjoining property owner, was opposed because he felt
it would negatively effect property values, he felt that the roads could not handle more
traffic, it would create safety concerns, and this was an established neighborhood.
Mr. Harry Orndoff, Trustee representing Emmanuel Independent Baptist
Church, had questions concerning outdoor storage, hours of operation, and leasing of the
building.
Mrs. Valerie Cote', resident at 753 Poorhouse Road, said that she had
recently invested a substantial amount of money to upgrade and refurbish her home and
she felt the garage would be detrimental to her property value. Mrs. Cote' was concerned
about the traffic on Poorhouse Road because it was narrow and winding. She felt that
traffic and noise would increase. She was also concerned about the safety of neighborhood
children boarding and departing school buses along the road. She was also concerned that
the property would become an eyesore.
The Conunissioners felt that if the conditions were adhered to and the
property maintained, appearance should not be a problem. They felt that this would be
a fairly low intensity use and traffic should not increase by any appreciable amount.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
reconunend approval of CUP #003-95 of Raymond Bailey for an automobile garage without
body repair with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments will be complied with prior to any service to the public.
2. The existing underground tank must be removed, disabled, or properly permitted.
3. All repair work must take place inside of an enclosed building.
4. No outside storage of parts or other materials shall be allowed.
5. No inoperative vehicles shall be allowed to be stored on the property.
6. No more than five vehicles awaiting repair will be allowed to be openly displayed on
the property at any one time.
7. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday.
5
This motion was approved by the following majority vote:
YES_ (TO APPROVE): Ours, Shickle, Morris, Thomas, Romine, Marker, Copenhaver,
Light, Stone
NO: DeHaven
Chairman DeHaven called for disposition on the letter from Mrs. Valerie
Cote' and the petition from Mr. Everett Bowers. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and
seconded by Mr. Thomas, both the letter and petition were made a part of the official
record. (These items will be placed in file CUP #003-95.)
Rezoning Application X1008-94 of James Carroll to rezone 2.81. acres from RP (Residential
Performance) to B2 (Business General). This property is located at the intersection of
Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road and is identified with PINS 64A -4-20A, 64A -4-10A,
and 64A -10-B in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Tabled for Two Weeks
Mr. Tierney said that this rezoning application was tabled by the Commission
at their meeting of November 2, 1994 and was subsequently tabled twice (December 7, 1994
and March 1, 1995) at the applicant's request.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., of G.W. Clifford & Associates, the consulting
engineers for this project, said that he was representing Mr. James Carroll, the owner of
the property. Mr. Maddox said that a meeting was held with the property owners at
Greenwood Fire Hall to get their input. He said that it was determined that a
transportation plan in this area could: 1) benefit the neighborhood residents by creating
good traffic control for the B2 uses while fitting in with the neighborhood environment; 2)
benefit the owner by the creation of geometrically better parcels that would be more
marketable; and 3) because of the large amount of land to the rear of this site that is zoned
for RP development and the potential increase in traffic, it would create a collector road
for the Route 50/Senseny Road Corridor.
Mr. Maddox next described the proposed traffic plan to the Commission. His
proposal basically called for an access from Route 50 into the area to the north, towards
Senseny Road, and provided a side access into Pembridge Heights. The Miller Heights
G1
access, which is Custer Avenue, would be relocated into a 90 degree intersection far enough
away from the Route 50 intersection to allow sufficient room for stacking, etc. Mr.
Maddox said that this was a significant infrastructure project and money for the project
would have to be acquired from other sources besides Mr. Carroll's proposed project. Mr.
Maddox felt it would be about a year or two before he could present a formal proffer
because of the extensive survey work, abandonment and rededication of right-of-ways, etc.
He said that Mr. Carroll is willing to undertake this process only with the support of the
Pembridge Heights property owners. Mr. Maddox requested that the Commission table
the rezoning for another two weeks so that the property owners could make a decision on
whether or not they were in favor of the proposal.
Commissioners asked if a definite use had been planned for the site and Mr.
Maddox replied no. Mr. Maddox said that Mr. Carroll does not have a buyer and does
not wish to proffer a use at this time.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following citizens
came forward to speak in opposition:
Mr. John Smoot, member of the Board of Directors for the Pembridge
Heights Homeowners Association, said that there seemed to be a lot of people in favor and
many were opposed to Mr. Maddox's proposal during the public meeting. Mr. Smoot said
that since the homeowner turnout at the public meeting was so low, the Board felt they
could not take the position of being the spokesperson for the whole subdivision. Mr. Smoot
asked that the Commission require some type of guarantee from the applicant that promises
will be fulfilled if the rezoning is approved.
Mrs. Ruth Ann Snyder, resident at 106 Clarenden Court, was concerned
about creeping commercial development towards her home and how it would negatively
effect the quality of her life. She also felt it would negatively effect her property value.
Mrs. Snyder also felt it would be unsafe for children to board and exit school buses in a
commercial area. Mrs. Snyder added that she felt it was wrong for someone to make a lot
of money at the expense of a lot of other people:
Ms. Penny Ravis, resident on Pembridge Drive, was opposed to the proposed
five -lane road because it was so close to her backyard. Ms. Ravis was concerned that if a
connection was made to Senseny Road, it would increase the traffic around her home.
Mr. Jim Davern, resident at. 105 Clarenden Court, said that his property
overlooks the proposed B2 area. Mr. Davern said that he was opposed to any commercial
development on Mr. Carroll's property.
Mr. Melton Baegent., resident on Custer Avenue in the Miller Subdivision,
was concerned about the noise that would be generated by commercial development.
Mr. Kerry Kimball, resident of Pembridge Heights, requested that assurances
be made by the applicant that what is provided in the plan will be carried out after the
rezoning takes place.
Mr. Foster Shwartz, area resident, expressed concern about the cost and use
of the proposed five -lane road. He was also concerned that a definite use for the property
had not been determined.
The Commissioners felt this was a unique situation in which the developer
made a commitment to work with a group of residents. They felt the proposal had many
pluses, especially long term; however, many questions were still left unanswered. The
Commissioners felt that the existing entrance to Pembridge Heights was inadequate and the
applicant's proposal had presented the homeowners with an aesthetically appealing, public -
safety oriented entrance. They also felt that the proposed entrance, would be beneficial
when future RP -zoned land to the north was developed. Commissioners agreed that leaving
the property zoned RP would not necessarily be better than the B2 proposal. Some of the
Commissioners felt it would be better to know the proposed use up front so they could
determine how intrusive it might be and how it might impact the quality of life on the
adjoining property owners. Another point made was that the applicant should pay
particular attention to the landscaping and buffering at the site plan stage so that the
closest property owners would be protected.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That. the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously table Rezoning Application #008-94 of James Carroll for two weeks at the
applicant's request.
An amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, Article
V, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165-51, Conditional Uses. This proposed amendment
will eliminate specific agricultural uses as required by the 1995 Right -to --Farm legislation.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt said that Governor- Allen signed the SB 513/HB 1228 Right -to -
Farm Bill into legislation effective April 1, 1995..Mr. Wyatt said that this legislation
prohibits localities from requiring special use permits for agricultural and silvicultural
production activities on property that is zoned for agricultural use. He said that the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance will need to be amended to eliminate all agricultural
production operations that currently require a conditional use permit. Mr. Wyatt said that
those uses include poultry production operations, fish production operations, and swine
M
production operations.
Mr. Wyatt said that Frederick County is in the process of working with the
Extension Service, members of the agribusiness community, and Jesse Richardson, a local
attorney whose expertise is in the field of agriculture, to develop reasonable performance
standards that are permitted under this legislation.
There were no public comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick
County Code, Zoning, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165-51, Conditional
Uses, and Section 165-50, Permitted Uses, as follows:
Elimination of the following subsections of Section 165-51, Conditional Uses, and placing
these subsections into Section 165-50, Permitted Uses.
165-51A Poultry farms and hatcheries and egg production.
165-51B Fish hatcheries and fish production.
165-51C Hog farming.
An Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, Article
X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-82, District Use Regulations. The
proposed amendment will allow art dealers, art supplies, and art framing operations as a
permitted use in the BI (Neighborhood Business) District.
Action - Approved
Mr. Wyatt said that the during the March 15, 1995 regular meeting of the
Planning Commission, Mr. John Stevens requested an opportunity to informally discuss the
potential for rezoning his property from B1 to B2 to allow an artgallery and framing shop.
Mr. Wyatt said that during this meeting, the Commission felt that it may be more
appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow this use than to have Mr. Stevens
rezone his property. Mr. Wyatt presented the amendment to the Commission.
There were no public comments.
E
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick
County Code, Zoning, Article X, Business and Industrial Districts, Section 165-82A,
Neighborhood Business District, as follows:
165-82A B1 Neighborhood Business District
Allowed Uses
(SIC)
Art Dealers, Art Supplies, and Art Framing None •.
OTHER
Master Development Plan #/001-95 of Valley Mill Estates for 22 single-family homes located
north of Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659), approximately 3/4 mile east of Greenwood Road (Rt.
656). This property is identified with PINS 55-A-176 and 55 -A -1.76B in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the consulting
engineers for this project, was present to represent the owner, The Cameron Group. Mr.
Gyurisin presented the Valley Mill Estates Master Development Plan to the Commission.
The Commissioners questioned why Julee Street was shown as a dead-end
street. They were concerned about access for emergency rescue vehicles.
Mr. Richard Pifer, partner in the Cameron Group, said that when this
request was first brought before the Commission, they described how they wanted to make
it a large lot, up -scale subdivision. Mr. Pifer said that from a marketing standpoint, they
were hesitant about making Julee a through street because of the amount of traffic that
might access through that point. He felt the proposed configuration, with the two
connectors at the northern end of the property, was going to give the continuity of flow of
traffic through this subdivision into the contiguous parcel to the west and still give them a
cul-de-sac where the larger lots would be located. Mr. Pifer said that for that reason, in
addition to the bad topography at the Julee Street location, were the two primary reasons
they were seeking this configuration.
10
Mr. Lawrence pointed out that comments by the County Engineer on
stormwater management and rills on Mill Race Drive will need to be addressed. He said
that the staff's recommendation is for approval.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Light said that comments from VDOT state that Julee Street has no
means of turn -around for school buses or maintenance vehicles and suggested that the
developer be required to construct a cul-de-sac. Mr. Tierney replied that the staff's
opinion was that the county does not have the authority to require this developer to go into
a previously developed subdivision to construct a cul-de-sac.
Commissioners were basically supportive of the master plan because of the
large lots that were proposed as opposed to a higher density plan, especially in light of the
traffic situation on Valley Mill Road. However, some Commissioners had concerns about
Julee Street not being extended. They felt that school buses, utility vehicles, and emergency
vehicles would have access and turn -around problems. It was noted that the topography
at this location would make it difficult to extend the street. Commissioners felt that in the
future, particular attention should be paid to the topography where connecting street
extensions are planned.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #001-95 of Valley Mill
Estates contingent upon the rezoning of the property to RP (Residential Performance) and
provided the applicant has adequately addressed all review agency comments, Planning
Staff comments, as well as all comments and concerns of the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED RP (RESIDENTIAL
PERFORMANCE) AMENDMENTS
Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS considered a request by Mr. Bruce Welch to
allow veterinary offices, clinics, or hospitals in the RP District with a conditional use
permit. He said that the DRRS felt that this use was conducive to the RP District,
provided that the boarding of animals was limited only to those that were receiving medical
or surgical attention.
Mr. Wyatt said that the essence of the DRRS's discussion focused on whether
performance standards were warranted for this use or whether conditions should be created
11
on a case by case basis. He said that the issues that were discussed included indoor and
outdoor kennels, buffers and screening, outdoor lighting, the type and size of permitted
business signs, and the potential need for an outdoor exercising area for therapeutic or
diagnostic use.
Mr. Wyatt said that the consensus of the DRRS was to allow this use without
performance standards and to list the use as veterinary offices, clinics, or hospitals and
have a statement that the only boarding associated with the operation would be for medical
or surgical attention. He said that the DRRS felt that each use should be reviewed on a
case by case basis in order for each particular site to be evaluated.
The Commission was in favor of considering the veterinary clinics as a
conditional use permit rather than listing the use with performance standards and
instructed the staff to advertise an amendment for the next available public hearing.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH RAYMOND L. FISH, D.V.M., REGARDING THE
COUNTY ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO FAMILY LOT SUBDIVISIONS.
Mr. Raymond L. Fish, D. V.M. came forward and said that his discussion
concerns property that he owns on Apple Pie Ridge and his desire to give to each of his rive
children an acre of this property. Mr. Fish said that he discovered after speaking with the
zoning administrator that family subdivisions now require a minimum of two acres and a
minimum of 250' of road frontage. Mr. Fish said that he was not aware that in 1991 a
amendment was made to the Frederick County Code to change the minimum size of a
family subdivision from one acre to two acres. Mr. Fish said that he contacted several
people who were members of the Board of Supervisors at the time this amendment took
place, including the Chairman, Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, and he said that these people were
also unaware of the change. Mr. Fish felt this requirement should be rescinded. Mr. Fish
said that Mr. Stiles and Mr. Charles Orndoff were present to speak in his behalf.
Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, citizen from Stonewall District and former Chairman
of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, said that he spoke with Mr. Miller at the
Planning Department and was told that the family subdivision lot size change was made in
1991 when the county made major revisions to the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Mr.
Stiles said that he was intimately involved with the drafting of that ordinance and he was
not aware that they were changing the minimum lot size for family subdivisions from one
to two acres. He said that lie would have been vehemently opposed to it and he felt it was
not the intent of the Board to increase that lot size. Mr. Stiles felt that it was wrong
because it took more land out of productive agriculture for someone to put a house on.
Mr. Stiles said that he spoke with Robbie Rhodes, who was the vice chairman of the Board
at the time, and Mr. Fish spoke with Manuel DeHaven, who was on the Planning
12
Commission, and both of these people's recollection was the same as his. Mr. Stiles felt
that the Commission also needed to revise the minimum road frontage. Mr. Stiles said that
in conjunction with this, he discovered that the "one-time division lot" was also removed
from the ordinance and he was not aware of this or in favor of it. Mr. Stiles said that this
was an important part of protecting and preserving agricultural land in Frederick County.
Several of the Commission members, Mr. Marker, Mr. Thomas, and Mrs.
Copenhaver, said that they distinctly remembered detailed discussion of this issue at the
subcommittee level. Mr. Light said that as a realtor, he also was aware of the two -acre
minimum lot size required by the ordinance. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the 250' frontage
was established to prevent too many driveways from coming out onto a main road. Mr.
Thomas felt that if the goal was to preserve agricultural land, then it would be best to look
into the elimination of the five -acre lot.
Mr. Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., Stonewall District Representative on the Board
of Supervisors, said that he recently gave each of his five children approximately 1 1/2 -
1 3/4 acre to build on. Mr. Orndoff said that this acreage is sufficient for them for a septic
and a nice home and is probably even too much land. Mr. Orndoff said that he agreed
with Mr. Stiles in that as far as he could recall, family subdivisions were not discussed at
the Board meeting in 1991 when the Rural Areas District was amended. He said that he
spoke with Mr. Dudley Rinker and Mr. Harrington Smith, who were both on the Board
at the time, and they did not recall changing the family subdivision lot size. Mr. Orndoff
felt that it should be rescinded and changed back to the one -acre minimum.
Mr. Donald Welsh, area resident, said that he felt the family lot division was
being abused by some people. Mr. Welsh said that he knew of an instance where a person
received approval to give each of his three very young children lots, however, the parent
built on the lots and sold them. Mr. Welsh felt that family lot subdivisions should have an
age limit, a time limit on building, and that the recipient of the lot should be required to
reside on the lot. Mr. Welsh said that he also was unaware that the minimum family lot
size was changed to two acres.
Some of the Commissioners said that they still firmly believed in the two acre
lot size, however, they would be willing to relax width requirements with the stipulation
that shared driveways were used. Mr. Thomas said that he was fairly involved with this
issue at the time it was changed and he said that it was studied very deliberately. Mr.
Thomas felt that it shouldn't be changed without serious investigation. After lengthy
discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to send the issue to the DRRS for study.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS
SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) CONCERNING THE REQUEST OF LINWOOD RITTER FOR
13
SEI3'ER EXTENSION
Mr. Tierney said that the CPPC again discussed this matter at their March
meeting, at the request of the Planning Commission, and it was the consensus of the CPPC
that it would not be appropriate to extend either the Sewer and Water Service Area or the
Urban Development Area at this time. Mr. Tierney said that the Committee's decision was
based on the precedent situation that may be caused by extending the Sewer and Water
Service Area to accommodate an individual property owner, let alone an individual
enterprise.
Commissioners noted that Mr. Ritter's property was zoned MH -1 (Mobile
Home) and if he was permitted to connect to the sewer, he could place 42 mobile homes on
his parcel. It was noted that not far from this property, there was another mobile home
park with a similar system and the same zoning. The Commissioners were concerned about
the precedent setting situation that may be caused by extending sewer to Mr. Ritter's
property. They were also concerned about the open lagoon on the property, which is
adjacent to the park, and the probability of it presenting an environmental and public
safety/health hazard. They wanted to see a solution to that problem, however, most of the
Commissioners felt that extending a sewer line was not the best solution. The staff noted
that Mr. Ritter will be required by the Department. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to
upgrade his system. Mr. Tierney said that once Mr. Ritter applies for his DPDES permit,
he will be required to upgrade his system within four years.
Mr. Light moved to recommend denial of Mr. Ritter's request for sewer
extension to his MH1 property located on Route 636. This motion was seconded by Mrs.
Copenhaver and was passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Mr. Linwood Ritter's request for server extension to his MH1 property
located on Route 636 be denied. The Planning Commission felt that it would not be
appropriate to extend either the Sewer and Water Service Area or the Urban Development
Area at this time.
The vote on this recommendation was:
YES (TO DENY THE SEWER HOOK-UP): Ours, Morris, Marker, Copenhaver, Light,
DeHaven
NO: Shickle, Thomas, Romine, Stone
APPOINTMENT OF MR. RICHARD C. OURS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
14
AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Chairman DeHaven appointed Mr. Richard C. Ours to the Comprehensive
Plans and Programs Subcommittee.
ADJOURNMENT
10:20 p.m.
Is
No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report
DATE: April 6, 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
(2) Conditional Use Permits Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Raymond Bailey 03/10/95 Gain Automotive Repair w/o
body repair
Roger L. Gardner 04/05/95 Gain Public Garage w/o
body repair
(3) Conditional Use Permits Approved: (dates are approval dates)
Michael & Rebecca Pet Industry Supplier
Sheffield 04/12/95 BcCk (Produce Rodents)
Barry & Shelia Myers 04/12/95 BcCk Bed & Breakfast
(4) Site Plans Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. 09/12/89 Opeq Trmt.facil
Grace Brethren Church
06/08/90
Shaw
Church
Flex Tech
10/25/90
Ston
Lgt. Industrial
Exxon Service Station
03/20/95
Ston
Service Station
Mad Bomber
04/11/95
Shaw
Office/Warehouse
Packs Frozen Custard
04/17/95
Back
Ice Cream Stand
(5) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates)
Amoco Foam
04/10/95
Ston
Storage area
Holiday Inn Express
04/14/95
Opeq
Motel
Lakeview Garden Apartments
04/17/95
Shaw
Apartments
Virginia Square
04/17/95
Gain
Burger King/Amoco
(6) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Briarwood Est. 01/04/94
Ston
2
(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
(8) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
Fieldstone Heights
Valley Mill Estates
Coventry Courts (revised)
Regency Lakes Estates
(revised)
04/25/94 Ston
03/16/95 Ston
03/31/95 Shaw
04/20/95 Ston
(9) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval
dates
Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 BaCk
James R. Wilkins III 04/14/93 Shaw
10) Variances Pending: (dates are submittal dates)
NONE
11) Variances Approved: (dates are approval dates)
Timothy & Kevin Giroux 04/18/95 BaCk
Ronald & Patricia Powers 04/18/95 Shaw
1E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT -.ACTIVITY REPORT #79 (April 1-15)
1. Plan Reviews Approvals, and Site Inspections:
Evan Wyatt reviewed site plans for Lakeview Townhouses, Sections V, VI, and
VII located along Chinkapin Drive and Hackberry Drive, and Hoss' Steak and Seafood House
located along Millwood Pike (beside Big Lots).
Evan Wyatt approved site plans for Lake View Apartments, located at the
intersection of Macedonia Church Road and Chinkapin Drive, and an additional outdoor storage
area. for Amoco Foam Company located along Martinsburg Pike.
Evan Wyatt conducted site inspections for the Flex Pak and Kraft General Foods
warehouses located in the Stonewall Industrial Park and the Children's Services Center, located
along Airport Road.
Eric Lawrence conducted a site inspection of the Federal Express facility in the
AeroBusiness Park on Victory Road. As a result of this visit, a temporary CO was issued.
Holiday Inn Express located off of Fairfax Pike was administratively approved
on April 13, 1995. This site plan calls for 70 rooms.
2. Meetinas
Bob Watkins, Kris Tierney, and Evan Wyatt met with Tom Sullivan, Assistant
Superintendent of Frederick County Schools, and a representative of the design firm for the new
elementary school on Route 7, to discuss site design issues.
Bob Watkins met with Jim McElvaine and Whit Wagner to discuss various
development issues.
Bob Watkins met with Ralph Shockey to discuss potential development.
Eric Lawrence met with Steve Gyurisin of G.W. Clifford to discuss possible
minor revisions to the Country Park Plaza site plan.
Evan W, att had the following meetiT�as:
Met with Dr. Gary DeOms and Brenda Diehl to continue work on the renewal of
the existing Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
Met with Tom Handy of the Price Club to discuss site development requirements.
Met with Tom Gilpin and Willis White to discuss a proposal to develop mini -
warehouse storage units on property along Regency Lakes Drive.
Met with Bassam Sabbaugh to discuss alternative landscape screening designs for
the Children's Services Center.
Participated in a Technical Review Committee meeting to review proposals for
the development of a new warehouse in the Stonewall Industrial Park, and a new church
facility for Redland United Methodist Church located along Collinsville Road.
Jean Moore had the following meetings:
Met with Mr. Jeff Craig to discuss alternatives for a deck attached to a home and
above ground pool.
Met with Dave Furstenau to review a preliminary site plan for Red Apple Deli
located off Fairfax Pike.
Met with Mrs. Linda Byers regarding a possible variance application for a room
addition and screened porch.
Met with Mr. Calvin Luttrel to discuss land use alternatives for property zoned
B-2 at Sunnyside.
3. GIS/Mapping
Draft mapping for the Battlefield Protection Plan is completed and being reviewed.
Presentation size copies of the maps have been produced for future worksessions and meetings.
Map conversion of Tax Maps into a GIS format has been accelerated and is
progressing nicely. Maps have been converted through ArcCAD, PIN numbers assigned, and
basic attribute data has been assigned. Staff are working on relating these maps to data base sets
in Planning and Information Services.
Work requests and services requested by citizens and public agencies has
increased. Location maps are now being produced by staff with zoning in color.
Jean Moore completed four drafts of maps covering land use, natural features,
current zoning and potential growth for the Round Hill Community. These drafts will be
completed prior to the public meeting to be held on May 8, 1995.
4. Board of Zoning Appeals
Jean Moore inspected and reviewed two applications for variances that will go
before the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 18, 1995:
001-95: Mr. Giroux of the Back Creek District is requesting a 48' variance for a deck attached
to a nonconforming structure. This variance, which staff recommended denial, was tabled by
the BZA on March 21, 1995.
003-95: Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Powers are requesting a 14.3 rear yard variance to bring their
home in compliance with the County Code and a 3' side yard variance for the construction of
a second set of stairs to reach a deck. (Staff will recommend approval for rear yard variance and
denial for side yard variance.)
5. Professional Development
Clay Grant attended a three day course on ArcCAD basics and obtained many
hints and ideas that can be used in the County's GIS.
Eric Lawrence and Jean Moore attended the Planners Network meeting at the
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission. Topics of discussion included: a U.N. Bioregional
proposal, Bike and Hike Trails Plan, and Regional Community Development Planning Grants.
6. Other
Bob Watkins participated in the review of the phase I Frederick County office
proposals.
Bob Watkins discussed planning in Frederick County with a Shenandoah
University, Environmental Sciences class.
Evan Wyatt and Jean Moore reformatted the site plan application package to
reflect the changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 12, 1995. Staff will continue
to work with State and County review agencies to make the package more user-friendly and
complete. Staff will also research an appropriate fee for site plans reviewed for a second time.
Evan Wyatt prepared a new map that delineates the properties proposed for
inclusion in the 1995 update of the Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
Evan Wyatt continued work on the development of the new Interstate Area
Overlay District that will allow taller commercial signs with a greater square footage along
Interstate 81.
P j C review date: 05/03/95
BOS review date:
REZONING APPLICATION #001-95
WAYNE R. RIDGEWAY
To Rezone 2.047 Acres
From RA (Rural Area)
To B3 (Industrial Transition District)
LOCATION: The property is located on US Route 522 just south of the intersection of
Bryarly Road (Route 789).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 42-A-249
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Area); present use: residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• RA (Rural Area); land use
residential
PROPOSED USE: Retail hardware and small equipment sales.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dent. 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: Fire lanes required to any proposed structure in accordance with
U.S.B.C. and Frederick County Chapter 10. 1) Fire and rescue impacts have been
addressed in the impact statement. I've received no response from Round Hill Fire
& Rescue Co.. 2) Any burning of land clearing debris on this site will require a
Page 2
Ridgeway Rezoning #001-95
permit from the Fire Marshal's Office. 3) Burning of construction debris is
prohibited. 4) Access for emergency vehicles must be maintained to all structures
at all times. 5) When any work begins on site, street address numbers must be
displayed in accordance with Frederick County Ordinance.
County Engineer: 1) The current commercial tipping fee is $38/ton rather that
$35/ton. 2) Locating and developing a sanitary drainfield will be difficult in this
area. Because of the relatively small lot sizes in the Albin area , drainfield failures
are a higher risk.
County Attorney Proffers need to be made by property owner.
Health Department: See attached letter dated January 31, 1995.
PLANNING:
Location: The parcel is located within the area of the Albin Community Center.
The Comprehensive Plan does not designate specific policies for Albin, it neither
promotes or discourages commercial development. The Plan does speak in general
terms about the likelihood of increased commercial activity in most of the community
centers.
The parcel involved is in close proximity to a number of commercial uses. The
property adjacent, to the northwest, has a CUP for a beauty salon. Reading
Landscape is located slightly further north. Ridge Country Store, Omps Garage,
Albin Self Storage, the County bus maintenance facility and the Virginia Farm
Market are all located along Route 522, south of the parcel.
Site Suitability: The site is relatively level with frontage on both Routes 522 and
789. The impact report submitted points out that neither the existing septic system
nor the well are adequate for a commercial operation. There is no indication as to
whether or not sufficient water or septic capacity can be located on the site.
Impacts: The traffic impact analysis submitted as part of the application projects
1,533 trips per day based on 37,696 square feet of retail use. The analysis also states
that access to the property will be from Route 522, however there is no proffer to
this effect. There is no crossover between the north and south lanes of 522 at this
location. Staff questions whether it might be preferable to have an access on Route
789 since its southern connection with 522 is controlled with a light, and the northern
connection is located at a crossover.
The applicant has submitted a proffer which excludes a number of the uses permitted
in B-3 zoning and offers to contribute the amount necessary to offset the projected
Page 3
Ridgeway Rezoning #001-95
impact to Fire and Rescue. There are a number of uses which would remain as
permitted they are; veterinary services, landscape and horticultural services, building
materials, hardware, garden supply, mobile home dealers, retail nurseries, gas stations,
business services, miscellaneous repair services, self service storage facilities, accessory
retailing, public buildings, business signs, directional signs, building entrance signs,
residential uses which are a accessory to allow business uses and parks. Staff feels
that a few of these uses would not be appropriate for this site.
Although the zoning ordinance would require buffering between B-3 zoning and
residential uses, the staff has some concerns about the potential visual impacts of
outdoor storage of rental vehicles and equipment.
Summary Staff is not comfortable with some of the uses which remain permitted
with the proffers submitted. There is also some concern over how adequate sewage
disposal and water supply will be provided to the site. The application does not
address these necessities. There could be a significant impact on traffic, particularly
during peak hours.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 05\03\95 MEETING• Denial based on potential
negative impacts which have not been addressed.
Lord Fairfax Environmental Heaith District
800 Smithfield Avenue
P. O. Box 2056
Winchester, Virginia 22604
(703) 722-3480 FAX (703) 722-3479
Counties of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, Warren, and City of Winchester
January 31, 1995
RE: Request for comments
Ronald A. Feathers property
TM # 42-A-249
To Whom It May Concern:
The new business proposed by Mr. Feathers must be served by a approved water
s;:pply and sewage disposal system, therefore the necessary requirements of the
Virginia Well Regulations and the Virginia Sewage Handling and Disposal
Regulations must be met.
A application with fees must be received at this office and then a site visit
must be made in- order to evaluate the property for the possibility of a well and
sewage disposal system.
According to our files, the existing system on the property has previously been
evaluated and it was determined that the system is not suitable for anything
other than its present use.
Considering the above statements, if all requirements of the health department
can be met, this office has no objections.
Siincnerely,
l� a� E7.—
Karl E. Evans, EHSS
REZONING #001-95 PIN: 42-A-259
WAYNE RIDGEWAY
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
To be completed by Planning Staff. -
Zoning Amendment Numbert—bl—q5 Date Received -
BOS Hearing Date LP I I Li PC Hearing Date-Gi
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:
Address: tI
Telephone: -1 1 -
2. Representative:
S
Name:= -
Telephone:
3. Owner:
_1
Name:v-
Address:
Telephone:
12
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:
2
4. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed
from �, V\ ._ �,,, L, �--to K'S
5. Current Use of the Property:
6. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING
13
based on nearest road and distance from
W2 A -- /O 7
.0z A— z*sl
7. Location: The property is located at (give exact location
nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
13
based on nearest road and distance from
S. Parcel Identification:
14 Digit Tax Parcel Number.
9. Magisterial District: � F. �\ ,D V -)o (:
10. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned.
Total Area: Acres
The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted:
2• 0^17 Acres Rezoned from to B-3
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: R, ", ,I'V) a
Deed Book. Number L -1 `A Pages
12. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be puttothe 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
Agency Comments
Fees
Impact Analysis Statement ✓'
Proffer Statement ✓
14
14. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of
Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for
site inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and
the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road
right-of-way until the hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to
the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant:
Owner:
Date:
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.
Property ID:
Address:
Propertv ID -
[7
L41
and Property Identification
rAddress
Address: 1���"\\��r� �lc C.L.
Property ID:
Pe y �-
2. �I��\>
Address:
U €a C
Property ID: '--c'�O
3.
Address:Lk
�� �� k� �-
� ,..tet. �•s �Q, U �. •�-� �� 1
-cp e--
Property ID: • C.3C3C3 OcCC
4.4
Address: 46 Cc Z 4-J C(� iJ
Lac 3
Property ID: �-4 a _ �G �� GC CC • G lC
Address:Vt.' � '�� �,—� � L �� �, -[R\ +- � GSC C-Ec
Property ID: 14 �-
►�� \>� L 1�=�����>
Address: 3C)�
�J
Property ID: C.C> G 1G
Address: tt
\\`F\,��-1
Property ID: 44 3 C;C�
. i GCCC� lC1
Address:
Property ID:
Address:
Propertv ID -
[7
L41
AMENDMENT
ACTION:
PLANNING COMMISSION
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
#001-95 of WAYNE R. RIDGEWAY
WHEREAS, Rezoning Application #001-95 of Wayne R. Ridgeway to rezone 2.047 acres
from RA (Rural Area) to B3 (Industrial Transition), and which is located just south of the
intersection of North Frederick Pike and Bryarly Road, designated with PIN 42-A-2499 in
the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on May 3,
1995; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on
. 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
that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise
the Zoning District Map to change 2.047 acres, designated by PIN 42-A-249, from RA
(Rural Area) to B3 (Industrial Transition) as described by the application and plat
submitted, subject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the
applicant and property owner:
PROFFER STATEMENT
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Wayne Ridgeway, Applicant
DATE: February 24,1995
SUBJECT: Application for a Class B3 Industrial Transition District
business zoning and the purchase of a lot of land improved by an
old dwelling house situate on U.S. Highway 522 at or near the
community of Albin, Virginia.
PROPERTY: 2.047 acre parcel located on U.S. Route 522 just south
of the intersection with Bryarly Road -Route 789. The parcel. is
currently zoned RA -Rural Areas District. This same property is
designated in the County of Frederick, VA Tax Parcel 42-A-249; of
record in Deed Book 674 Page 93.
CURRENT OWNERS OF PROPERTY: Ronald A. Feathers and Tenoncee
Feathers.
INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY: To build a one-story masonry building to
house a hardware store which will also lease U -Hauls, mechanical
tools such as wood splitters, chainsaws, kerosene forced air
heaters, etc. and be used for storage of merchandise equipment,
parts and accessories. The land and building will also be used to
store or park U -Haul trucks and trailers and their parts, equipment
MASSIE, INGER, BOYD 4S IDEN, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
30 SOUTH CAMERON STREET
WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601
JOSEPH A. MASSIE. JR.
P. O. BOX 2812
WARRENTON OFFICE
ROGER A. INGER
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604
LUKE H. BOYD, JR.
9 NORTH THIRD STREET
ALEXANDER R. IDEN'
WARRENTON. VA 22186
PHONE: (703) 667-9787: 667-6717 17031347-5446
FAX: (703) 667-0134
' ALSO ADMITTED IN WEST VIRGINIA
PROFFER STATEMENT
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Wayne Ridgeway, Applicant
DATE: February 24,1995
SUBJECT: Application for a Class B3 Industrial Transition District
business zoning and the purchase of a lot of land improved by an
old dwelling house situate on U.S. Highway 522 at or near the
community of Albin, Virginia.
PROPERTY: 2.047 acre parcel located on U.S. Route 522 just south
of the intersection with Bryarly Road -Route 789. The parcel. is
currently zoned RA -Rural Areas District. This same property is
designated in the County of Frederick, VA Tax Parcel 42-A-249; of
record in Deed Book 674 Page 93.
CURRENT OWNERS OF PROPERTY: Ronald A. Feathers and Tenoncee
Feathers.
INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY: To build a one-story masonry building to
house a hardware store which will also lease U -Hauls, mechanical
tools such as wood splitters, chainsaws, kerosene forced air
heaters, etc. and be used for storage of merchandise equipment,
parts and accessories. The land and building will also be used to
store or park U -Haul trucks and trailers and their parts, equipment
and accessories.
The land and building will be expressly not used for:
1. Offices and storage facilities for building construction
contractors, heavy construction contractors and special trade
contractors.
2. Commercial printing.
3. Local and suburban transit and interurban highway
passenger transportation.
4. Motor freight transportation and warehousing.
5. Transportation by air.
6. Transportation services.
7. Communication facilities and offices, including
telephone, telegraph, radio, television and other communications.
8. Electric, gas and other utility facilities and offices
and trucking and warehousing.
9. Automotive dealers.
10. Automotive repair, services and parking.
11. Drive-in motion picture theaters.
12. Amusement and recreation services operated indoors.
13. Vocational schools.
14. Business associations.
15. Professional membership organizations.
16. Labor unions and similar labor organizations.
17. Model home sales office.
18. Public utility distribution facilities.
19. Wholesale trade business.
20. Laundry, drycleaning and garment services.
21. Engineering, accounting research and management related
services.
22. General business offices.
CARE OF PREMISES: The property will be kept free of trash and
rubbish. Trees and plants will be planted and maintained around
the perimeter of the lot for screening purposes.
COSTS CONNECTED WITH PROPOSED ZONING OF PREMISES: Applicant is
willing to pay the unfunded cost of $429.22 for emergency services
for the property.
acv i.iy n. 1 —L -L 11 IL,.".), VW11C1
TEND CEE FEATHERS, Owner
This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Passed this
Richard G. Dick
Chairman
day of '1995.
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.
Jimmie K. Ellington
James L. Longerbeam
Robert M. Sager
A Copy Attest
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
LEWIS & ASSOCIATES
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
24 East Piccadilly Street tel.: (703)722-9377
Winchester, VA 22601 fax.: (703)662-1861
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
A PROPOSED REZONING
for
RONALD A. FEATHERS PROPERTY
Gainesboro District
Frederick County, Virginia
January 6, 1995
revised: March 13, 1995
Prepared for: Mr. Wayne Ridgeway
1026 Millwood Pike
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Tel.: (703)667-3244
Prepared by: LEWIS & ASSOCIATES
24 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Tel.: (703)722-9377.
IMPACT ANALYSIS STAB-;MENT
FEATHERS PROPERTY
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i.yirm-A
i.
INTRODUCTION
I
A.
SITE SUITABILITY
I
B.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
2
C.
TRAFFIC
2
D.
SEWAGE TREATMENT
3
E.
WATER SUPPLY
3
F.
DRAINAGE
3
G.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
4
H.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
4
I.
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
4
J.
ENVIRONMENT
5
K.
OTHER IMPACTS
5
APPENDIX
6
IMPACT ANALYSIS STAMENT
FEATHERS PROPERTY
i_ INTRODUCTION
The Ronald A. Feathers property is a 2.047 acre parcel located on U.S. Route 522 just south of
the intersection with Bryarly Road -Route 789. The property location is shown on Exhibit 1. The
parcel is currently zoned RA -Rural Areas District. This same property is designated in the
County of Frederick, VA Tax Parcel 42-A-249; Deed Book 674 Page 93. The zoning proposed
for the parcel is B3 -Industrial Transition District.
The present use of the parcel is residential. Preliminary plans proposed for the parcel call for the
establishment of small trailer and truck rentals in combination with retail hardware and small
equipment sales.
A. SITE SUITABILITY
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map panel #510063 0105 B, and the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, the
property is not within a designated 100 year flood plain.
WETLANDS
The property is generally well -drained. There are no low spots, swampy areas or obvious hydric
plants which would indicate the presence of wetlands on the property.
STEEP SLOPES
The property slopes generally to the west. The approximate average elevation above sea level is
900. Slopes range from approximately 1.0% to 10.0%.
MATURE WOODLANDS
Judging from the apparent age of the existing dwelling, the property has been used for
residential purposes for at least 50 years. Prior to that time and before the construction of U.S.
522 as a divided highway, the property was likely used for agricultural purposes. The property
has been generally cleared of woodlands with the exception of some second growth deciduous
trees along the southern boundary.
SOILS
According to the USDA Soil Conservation Service soil survey for Frederick County, the
property contains the following soils:
•Frederick- Pop limento Loams, 2% to 7% (14B)
•Frederick-Poplimento very rocky loams, 7% to 15% (16C)
•Timberville Silt Loam, 2% to 7% (40B)
The predominant Unified soil classifications are ML, CL -ML, and CL. Depth to bedrock can be
expected at 60 inches below the ground surface. However, a limestone rock outcrop is visible
running north and south across the eastern portion of the site.
page 1
IMPACT ANALYSIS STA. EMENT
FEATHERSPROPERTY
PRIME AGRICUL.TU_R4L SOILS
According to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, the property contains prime
agricultural soils. This soil is the Timberville silt loam which comprises approximately 40% of
the site (or less than one acre) generally adjacent to Route 789. The majority of the site contains
soils too rocky for classification as prime soils.
Exhibit 2 illustrates the existing conditions of the parcel.
B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The property is bordered on the north by a single family dwelling which also contains a hair
salon business. The dwelling is approximately 75' from the property line. To the east lies U.S.
Route 522. Across Route 522 is agricultural land. To the south is a residential lot containing a
single family dwelling approximately 60' from the south property line. To the west lies Route
789 and several single family dwellings on the other side of the right of way. All of the
surrounding zoning is RA.
Potentially negative impacts associated with the development of the subject property under the
proposed zoning will result from the construction of a commercial building adjacent to
properties containing mostly single family residential dwellings. A commercial establishment
will normally contain exterior security lighting and fencing. Building materials may not reflect
the character of a residential area. Outdoor areas will serve as storage. Headlight glare is likely
to occur as a result of customer usage during the evening hours. These visual impacts will be
mitigated by the implementation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements for
setbacks, landscaping and buffers. These minimum requirements are illustrated on Exhibit 3.
(The minimum landscape area required for the proposed zoning is 25% of the gross area or
22,292 square feet).
Overall, the Albin area is a mixture of small businesses, orchards and private residences.
Accessibility and visibility from U.S. Route 522 has encouraged the establishment of businesses
which include the Virginia Farm Market, Albin Ridge Mini Storage, The Factory Outlet Store,
Reading Landscapes, Ridge Country Store and two small hotels. The Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Plan identifies Albin as a "potential rural community center". The proposed development
would be an addition to the already established private commercial services of the area.
C. TRAFFIC
For the purpose of this analysis it will be assumed that the maximum possible intensity of
development for B-3 zoning which will be permitted after proffers will be used to estimate
traffic impacts. According to county model information, the maximum possible intensity for B-3
zoning on 2.047 acres is 37,696 square feet of retail use. According to ITE Trip Generation
figures, the average trip generation per 1,000 square feet in the specialty retail category on a
weekday is 40.67. Given 37,696 square feet of space, the cumulative average daily trip
generation for the proposed development is 1,533 at maximum possible intensity.
page 2
IMPACT ANALYSIS STA. LMENT
FEATHERSPROPERTY
According to ITE Trip Generation figures, the average trip generation per 1,000 square feet in
the specialty retail category at the peak hour between 7 and 9 a.m. is 6.41. Given 37,696 square
feet of space, the cumulative peak hour trip generation for the proposed development is 241 at
maximum possible intensity.
Traffic will enter and leave the property via U.S. Route 522. U.S. Route 522 is a major arterial
road. According to a 1992 tabulation for traffic by the Virginia Department of Transportation,
the average daily trip count for U.S. Route 522 at the site is 15,000. The additional traffic
generated by the maximum possible intensity as described above would necessitate
improvements to Route 522 to accommodate acceleration and deceleration lanes. An entrance
permit will have to be obtained from VDOT at the site plan review stage of the project.
D. SEWAGE TREATMENT
There are currently no public sewerage facilities available in the area. Sewage will have to be
treated and disposed by the conventional subsurface absorption field method. The drainfield
serving the existing dwelling on the property will not be adequate to treat additional sewage. A
permit from the Virginia Department of Health will be required for the installation of a new
drainfield. Field size will be based on percloation rates, projected employee numbers and an
average usage of 30 to 40 gallons per day per employee.
E. WATER SUPPLY
There is currently no public potable water service in the area. The well serving the existing
dwelling on the property will not be adequate to provide potable water to any proposed
commercial establishment. A permit from the Virginia Department of Health will be required
for the installation of a new well. The total daily expected water demand is based on a demand
of 30 to 40 gallons per day per employee.
F. DRAINAGE
The property lies near the top of a major watershed divide between the Potomac and Shenandoah
Rivers. Drainage from the parcel flows to the west to Parish Run and then north to Back Creek
and enters the Potomac River after traversing the West Virginia County of Berkeley. Measurable
surface water runoff occurs on the site intermittently during periods of heavy rainfall. Runoff is
conveyed beneath Route 789 by a 30 inch diameter corrugated metal pipe. The proposed
development will include storm water management measures designed to prevent adverse
impacts on the surrounding properties and storm water structures.
page 3
IMPACT ANALYSIS STA _ iMENT
FEATHERS PROPERTY
G. EMERGENCY SERVICES
The nearest county fire facility is the Round Hill Community fire company No. 15 located
approximately 3 miles to the south on U.S. Route 50. The nearest county rescue facility is also
the Round Hill Community Fire company.
No additional fire and rescue facilities will be required for the proposed development. However,
the cost projected to meet emergency services needs can be estimated by the following:
cost = cost per 1000 square feet x 1000 square feet of establishment
These costs are interpolated from county model figures and based on information from the
Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and is based upon 37,696 square feet of retail space.
$138.00 = $3.66 x 37.696
credit for taxes to capitol cost = $184.00
H. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The nearest solid waste transfer facility is located approximately 0.5 miles to the south on Route
679. No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be required for the proposed development.
The amount of solid waste generated by the development is estimated to be 50 pounds per day.
The figures below are based on information from the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and
the county staff. Tipping fees are $35.00 per ton. Collection fees are $25.00 per ton. The cost
projected to meet waste disposal needs can be estimated by the following:
cost = cost per ton of waste x tonnage
$547.50 = $60.00 x 50/2000(365)
I. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
The property contains no known historic sites or structures as listed on the Virginia Landmarks
Register and the National Register. According to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan
Battlefield inventory, the property lies just outside the commonly accepted limits of the Second
Battle of Winchester. No other sites of historic significance are known to exist on the property.
The Rural Landmarks Survey Report lists the property as containing a significant agricultural
structure from the period of 1865-1914:
House, Route 789 (543)
page 4
IMPACT ANALYSIS STA-iMENT
FEATHERSPROPERTY
According to The Rural Landmarks Survey Report, there exist numerous significant structures in
the immediate area. See Exhibit 4 for additional listings.
J. ENVIRONMENT
There are no significant environmental features on the subject property. Construction of the
proposed development using accepted engineering and constructed practices will pose no threat
to groundwater, surface water or air quality.
O. OTHER IMPACTS
Interviews with county staff indicate that no additional impacts are requited to be addressed at
this time.
page 5
�' % `�i /�' � \'\moi'/'^� V\�`\ /^` •�l i i ti.. :'� /\�C
-` `Oi// .�,.1 , .,(l �� "��J)�//�/j �y� �^-\� � f i ,�^ `�• �J (I J �i 9S�' % \I r ���'/
t
J
to
7- Its
y m ry Bethd ' )%11 L - /"' / / �])i Cemf,
.0/,
`' %� //��� • ':i ✓ !I�7�C\i. � � �,:�;' 1.1 _-`,: � ._ ;' ( !/!J/�� _�} � Q3 �✓�... o � _ \' ' 1/\�/�
1 t�— `1 �� �9"; �. \ - \�� /s''.^ `` � =o - c.. Jr ! �I� i!!1 � —/ 1 — i i //i ' •' � , u. � �~• \� ��
j( p��� _ r n. �\ ( /a• .J F. / ., a�s:fsa: tea. Q i, r''i /i.�
Z. _ �c0���—� \ �� vV a �� - • ; 1 i qi 1\ �c�`
965 c- �— - , `\''^/ e O �•- n/- ; `, ` 1 ' : 1 ••
' moi'.' . - � J �J .��t Q � • � �: • _ _ � J{.. � ti � /�—
�� • �� "
3pring X966
_• �J :�c� - �� :.�. ,.p - - ,.�� •�, -- , � � .1 Lam. C - � � �, %_
L
SITE LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT 1 LEWIS & ASSOCIATES
RONALD A. FEATHERS PROPERTY 24 EAST PICCADILLY STREET
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA SCALE: 1/.=20001 WINCHESTER, VA 22601
IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 94-071
1
REOA VIRGINIA DAVISON
367 BRYARLY ROAD
42-A-104
r
r
C. ROBERT KIDWELL
LARGENT RT. BOX 49
GREAT CACAPON, WV 25422 r
42-A-105
r
00
W
N
DUNBAR LANE W r
ROUTE 852 f (,
f O H
0_
BETHEL LUTHERAN PARSONAGE
BLOOMERY STAR RT. -BOX 117-A ( x
42-A-106 I -f-- . 0
RAYMOND G. EDWARDS
327 BRYARLY ROAD
42-A-107
r
r
I
C. JOSEPH LIZER
145 INDIAN HOLLOW
42-A-250
1
140
2
O
EXIST.
DWELLING
(
i 0
408
I
/EXIST. SHEDS
0
'
f 16C
/ROCK OUTCROP
I�
E s�
l 3f�AVENUE�
ELSIE E. CAR26 MONTAGUE `
42-A-248
EXISTING CONDITION
RONALD A. FEATHERS PROPERTY EXHIBIT 2 LEWIS &ASSOCIATES
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA24 EAST PICCADILLY STREET
IMPACT ANALYSIS SCALE: 1"=60' WINCHESTER, VA 22601
PROJECT NO. 94-071
0
Vo
1 �
Z
N
m+1�
N 4
N
i
o
�-i
N
N
0
N
m�N
Lp 1W
y
E s�
l 3f�AVENUE�
ELSIE E. CAR26 MONTAGUE `
42-A-248
EXISTING CONDITION
RONALD A. FEATHERS PROPERTY EXHIBIT 2 LEWIS &ASSOCIATES
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA24 EAST PICCADILLY STREET
IMPACT ANALYSIS SCALE: 1"=60' WINCHESTER, VA 22601
PROJECT NO. 94-071
m
Q] W
N
OUNBAR LANE
ROUTE est
O
0:
1 �
�w
1
2
0
I ` NBr,�'rw
'x.94
I
ft
RfQUa
2S A�
T/yF B
\ U
FUS >$,
4Ngs P j SC EFNFER
REQUIRE
�m
O�p
�
�Z
K
N �+!
rn �
C
�
O
N
N
o
z
N
U 1U
.o �
3jg6�� f X01 m
t
SETBACKS & BUFFERS
EXHIBIT 3 LEWIS & ASSOCIATES
RONALD A. FEATHERS PROPERTY 24 EAST PICCADILLY STREET
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA SCALE: 1 "=60' WINCHESTER, VA 22601
IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 94-071
N
3 -
NUMBER COMMON NAME
34 533 House, Route 522
34 534 Solenberger Orchard
34. 535 Reading Landscapes
34 536 House, Route 522
34 537 Davis, G.H. Store and Station
34 538 Janney -Davis -Massey House
34 539 Albin Cash Grocery
34 540 Luttrell, Howard House 11
34 541 Luttrell, Howard House 32
34 542 House, Route 789
34 543 House, Route 789
34 544 Faith Revival Center
34 545 Edwards House
34 546 Greystone Farm
34 547 House, Route 789
34 548 House, Route 789
34 549 Reynolds, Lloyd House
34 550 Howard House
34 551 Ungers, Maple Hill
34 552 Buncutter House
34 553 Hudson House
34 554 Mayes House
34 555 Factory Outlet, The
34 556 House, Route 679 at Route 789
34 557 Judge Tavenner Place
34 558 Solenberger-Dove House
34 559 House, Rt. 679
RURAL LANDMARKS INVENTORY
EXHIBIT 4 LEWIS & ASSOCIATES
RONALD A. FEATHERS PROPERTY 24 EAST PICCADILLY STREET
FREDERICK COUNTY. VA WINCHESTER, VA 22601
IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 94--071
OUTPUT MODULE
Capital
C=
. ire Department
$47
Rescue Department
$91
Elementary Schools
$0
Middle Schools
$0
High Schools
$0
Parks and Recreation
$Q
TOTAL
$138
FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM
New Capital Costs Not
Covered by County
Contributions
Net Credit for
Fiscal Taxes to
Impact Capital
Credit Costs
$184
$1,008,742
$67,274
$71,457
$429.22
NOTES:
Feathers Property Rezoning: Assumes 37,696 square feet of retail use on 2.047 acres zoned B-3.
bDE?INFORM�To�.J C-CMPILEp ( 15I9s 3y
Net
lmr)art
$0
P/C Review Date: 05/03/95
BOS Review Date:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #004-95
ROGER L. GARDNER
AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR WITHOUT BODY REPAIR
LOCATION: This property is located at 472 Bloomery Pike (Route 127), Whitacre, Virginia.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 11 -A -24E
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) Land use - Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) Land Use -
residential and agriculture (wooded)
PROPOSED USE: Automotive repair without body repair
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The existing private entrance serving the
property does not meet commercial entrance design standards nor is VDOT's minimum
sight distance requirements met at the present location to allow for safe egress/ingress.
However,we would not object to a conditional use permit being issued for this property
if the applicant is required to construct an entrance which meets VDOT's minimum
commercial design standards on the north side of the property in order to obtain
minimum sight distance requirements. This will entail extensive excavation. Any work
performed on the Route 127 right-of-way must be covered under land use permit.
NOTE: At the request of the Zoning Administrator, VDOT highway inspector met with
the Gardeners and a reasonable solution to the entrance location was determined. This
was staked by the VDOT inspector and the Gardners have no objection to this entrance
modification.
Page 2
Gardner CUP #004-95
Fire Marshall. 1) Storage of any flammable or combustible liquids must comply
with Chapter 32, Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, at all times. 2) Street
address numerical required at road in accordance with Frederick County
Ordinance. 3) No Spray painting is permitted unless approved spray booth with
automatic fire suppression system is installed in accordance with building and
fire codes.
Inspections Department: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code and Section 311, Use Group S (Storage) of the BOCA National Building
Code 1993. Other codes that apply are Title 24 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in
Commercial Facilities. Will require minimum plumbing fixtures according to the BOCA
National Plumbing Code and Drainage from the floor shall run through an approved
grease oil separator.
Health Department: The health department has no objections to this conditional
use as long as there will be no increased water use. The septic tank and
distribution box for the system were observed on March 24, 1995, and the septic
system appeared to function properly.
Planning Department: This requested use is allowed by ordinance with an
approved conditional use permit. The applicant desires to construct a new
building to accommodate the use. During a visit to the site on April 18, 1995
the location of the proposed building was identified by the applicant. The
location will be screened from the highway (Route 127, Bloomery Pike) due to
elevation and from an adjoining residence by a wooded area. The adjoining
residence is estimated to be at least 500 feet away. The entrance to the property
will need to be relocated further to the north as marked by VDOT in order to
provide better sight visibility for vehicles entering or leaving the location. It does
not appear that allowing this use would have any significant impact on the
neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MAY 3, 199: Approval 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.
Page 3
Gardner CUP #004-95
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 5 vehicles awaiting repair shall be locates] on the property at any
time.
6. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7 AM to 7 Pm Monday through
Saturday.
CUP #004-95
PIN: 11-A-24E
ROGER L.
GARDNER
ZONING:
RA
1.
NAME:
ADDRESS:
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA _
(The applicant if the owner other)
�o[�e�r L_ Gardner
41)\ Bl conn cru Pi Ke .
TELEPHONE C-7C3l '3$ g - 3q� 9
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
Ro( ear L. Gardne -
Rc -ic Gar
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
P
4. The property --.has a road frontage of feet and a
depth of �@ O feet and consists of acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by C� L. UyK ( A -&Mf as
evidenced by deed from `a recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. cam— on page , as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
RM
14 -Digit Property Identification No.
Magisterial District �ya,n,16 bf
Current Zoning re -65 6eXIAinl
7. Adjoining Property:
USE
North W!*cLlg.0 TI I -
East 21ECA I =;9 TI /fes
South �25 - A (
West AA GLR4-4Lt, Lzue-C-C
11660 Q;L4F
S. The type of use proWis
is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing) L C- C -W
9. It is proposed that the following buildin s will be
constructed: 3cp'
w4e:rt .t
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.)
MAP i I
NAME
L6'gci
Address
V 0,
2)C?( 179 WhARCte I VR a- (r'D
Property ID# J J00C)_A_ (a �� G
QCucO.
�-�-`h i-�ctc rer
address
-erne. (7 k l ikccre.
A dib
Property ID# C._A _Coco __ C) a4 D
rnc44Vn -
Address
.
Pi l%;ht- (3(' e
UR
Property ID# I WO (1 -(IXC — OD, 4R
Address
%0o
Property ID# i �L� (�- 60)O() -PC) -(),4
C'-'acy
Linn m�,i4.s
Address L�9 C- cram �Cac �Ill� ACC-
VA O)Q
Property ID#
Address
Property ID#
ias
gas
as
f
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.
NO.P 7 -,AO'
L
►� I ' 0
�� soclobd
79CP 4CRES
DEED BOOK 575 p4ae 270
e I
f46j
Y7 I
.S Od' /7' 15"E 323 .36
7 X-6
F -I E.P�-B.✓ CE.PTlFY J',N4 > ON .N4.00/,� ZO /986 , / M/10E
4CCC/g4TE SC/G;/EY OA THE A,POOE, 'rY AEPPESEiVTEO BY
' a' a,v�� ri aT TvEPE .4 -Pc NO ENCP04Ch'rtdENTS O,PE;4's6l e6vrs
R0 .
o°S
Al1_ .i.� .a,•�h
►� I ' 0
�� soclobd
79CP 4CRES
DEED BOOK 575 p4ae 270
e I
f46j
Y7 I
.S Od' /7' 15"E 323 .36
7 X-6
F -I E.P�-B.✓ CE.PTlFY J',N4 > ON .N4.00/,� ZO /986 , / M/10E
4CCC/g4TE SC/G;/EY OA THE A,POOE, 'rY AEPPESEiVTEO BY
' a' a,v�� ri aT TvEPE .4 -Pc NO ENCP04Ch'rtdENTS O,PE;4's6l e6vrs
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
IN
4`7W 61 -mex-j Pirie,
Owners' Mailing Address�i�-Qr_rP_
Owners' Telephone No. 6) US - 391
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
Ji �4Atb-1
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II ` J
RE: 1995 South Frederick Agricultural And Forestal District
DATE: April 20, 1995 -
The South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District is scheduled for renewal this Spring.
This will be the third renewal for this district which was established in 1980. During the 15
year existence of this district, significant agricultural properties have continued to request to
remain in the district. At this time, the proposed district is almost 15,000 acres. The 1990
renewal contained approximately 13,500 acres.
The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) considered this district during their
meeting of April 11, 1995. The committee recommended that all properties that had completed
and returned the required information to staff be included in the 1995 update for a period of five
years. At this time, 89 property owners have met this criteria. The ADAC also recommended
that restrictions be placed on these properties to prohibit traditional five acre lot subdivisions and
rural preservation lot subdivisions. This restriction does not prohibit family lot divisions and
land divisions for agricultural purposes.
Property owners may continue to apply to be part of this district until the public meeting of the
Board of Supervisors. Property owners may also retract any proposed parcel until that time.
State Code provides relief for the removal of property during its time in the district should the
property owner perish and the heirs desire to have the property removed.
Staff will present a map that delineates the proposed 1995 South Frederick Agricultural district
during the Planning Commission meeting. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider this
item and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution.
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL
& FORESTAL DISTRICT
1095
173
�1
Prepared by:
Evan Wyatt, Planning Department
Gary DeOms, .Extension Service
Brenda Diehl, Extension Service
INTRODUCTION
This Agricultural District document has been created to answer any questions you have about
properties in the district. It is essentially a manual of lists. You will find that the basic
information about parcels in the district can be referenced by owner's name, or by property map
identification number. Lists include information about acreage of each parcel, and whether or not
this is a new addition to the district. Properties being added to the district this spring are denoted
by the addition sign "+
An overview map outlining the district can be found on the next page of this document, and a
brief summary of the statistics of the new district follows the map.
THE PROPOSED SOUTH FREDERICK
AGRICULTURAIJFORFSTAL
DISTRICT - 1995
1995 Ag District
SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
SUMMARY SHEET
The South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District is up for its five year review this
spring. Participants have been notified by letter and most have elected to re -enroll their
property in the District. Some property owners are requesting the placement of
additional parcels of their land in the District. Other landowners in the vicinity of the
District have also expressed a desire to join this year.
The new grand total for the South Frederick Agriculture District is 14,841.61
acres. The 1990 District contained 13,560 acres.
The total acreage up for renewal is 11,342.79.
The total amount of acreage requesting addition is 3,498.82.
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
Eighty-nine landowners have requested renewal or addition to the South Frederick
Agriculture District. All but one requesting property owner met current requirements
for inclusion in the District. The lone exception is more than one mile away from the
contiguous core of the District. Presently, the laws governing Agriculture Districts state
that land must be within one mile of the core parcels in order to be included.
NUMBER OF PARCELS IN
There are Two -Hundred fifteen parcels submitted for consideration in the South
Frederick Agriculture District. The average parcel size is 69.03 acres. There are fifty-six
parcels in excess of one -hundred acres.
CURRENT USE OF LAND
Most of the parcels submitted in the district are currently in Agriculture use. A majority
of the land is in orchard production (estimated to be over 4,000 acres). Other uses
include greenhouse production, pasture, row crops, or forestry production.
DURATION OF 95 AGRICULTURE DISTRICT
Properties approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1995 will be protected from
development for five years. The District will be up for renewal again in the year 2000.
Page 3
1005 Ag Disc
`rict
O `GK CUG �
d SOUTH FREDERICK
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT - 1995
(New properties to be added are designated by a "+" beside acreage total)
PROPERTY OWNER
MAP #
ACREAGE
ANDERSON, PAUL G JR & MARY EDNA
73 A
100
95.00 ac.
ANDERSON, SHIRLEY K
73 A
30B
5.95 ac.
BARLEY, GLENN & MARY IC
74 A
12
9.00 ac.
BARLEY, KENT INC.
73 A
104
111.80 ac.+
BARLEY, KENT INC.
74 A
13
139.86 ac.+
BARLEY, KENT INC.
74 A
13A
27.32 ac.+
BARLEY, KENT INC.
74 A
18
188.00 ac.+
BARLEY, KENT INC.
85 A
1
189.00 ac+
BAUGHMAN, DONALD L.
72 A
58
168.50 ac.
BAUGHMAN, DONALD L.
72 A
59
20.00 ac.
BAUSERMAN, CHARLES C. JR.
C/O STANLEY L. BAUSERMAN
72 A
60
15.00 ac.
BAUSERMAN, CHARLES C.
73 A
20
234.43 ac.
BAUSERMAN, CHARLES C.
73 A
18
137.01 ac.
BAUSERMAN, STANLEY L.
73 A
19
197.51 ac.
BAUSERMAN, STANLEY L.
73 A
101
69.00 ac.
BEATTY, DOUGLAS E.
91 A
8A
1.40 ac.
BLACK, STEVEN B.
72 A
31
38.11 ac .+
BLACK, STEVEN B.
72 A
31B
6.88 ac.+
BOYD, ROBERTS. DR.
62 A
23
262.00 ac.
BOYD, SUE M & JAMES E
61 A
76
6.86 ac
BRIM, NOLAN D. & LOUISE S.
74 A
6
91.00 ac.+
BRIM, NOLAN D. & LOUISE S.
74 A
7
18 0. 00 ac.+
Page 4
1995 Ag District
BRIM, NOLAN D. & LOUISE S.
74
A
8
3.70 ac.+
BRIM, NOLAN D. & LOUISE S.
74
A
46
34.75 ac.+
BROWN, ANNEMARRIE Z.
74
A
IOB
6.00 ac.
BROWN, CHARLES F.
74
A
64
76.00 ac.
BRUMBACK, FRANKLIN H.
73
A
65
5.00 ac.
BRUMBACK, HARVEY L.
72
A
27
7.66 ac.
BRUMBACK, HARVEY L & RAY V
C/O BENJAMIN BUTLER
72
A
23
144.00 ac.
BRUMBACK, HENRY M. & GLADYS B.
73
A
64
5.00 ac.
BRUMBACK, JAMES 1. & MARY H.
73
A
32
5.11 ac.
BRUMBACK, PHILIP HARVEY & HUBERT LEE II
72
A
22
50.00 ac.
BRUMBACK, PHILIP HARVEY HUBERT LEE II
72
A
25
18.00 ac.
BRUMBACK, PHILIP HARVEY & HUBERT LEE II
72
A
27
7.66 ac.
BRUMBACK, PHILIP HARVEY & HUBERT LEE II
72
A
54
105.00 ac.
BRUMBACK, RAY V.
60
A
20
73.00 ac.
BRUMBACK, RAY V.
72
A
24
158.33 ac.
BRUMBACK, RAY V.
72
A
26
119.00 ac.
CARBAUGH, ANNIE W.
74
A
34
.20 ac.
CARBAUGH, DAVID HENRY
73
A
39
11.90 ac.
CLOVERDALE FARMS, INC.
52
A
305
433.01 ac.
CLOVERDALE FARMS, INC.
62
A
69
138.56 ac.
EDWARD C. COPENHAVER, TRUST
EDWARD C. & MARJORIE, TRUSTEES
62
A
26
.25 ac.+
EDWARD C. COPENHAVER, TRUST
EDWARD C. & MARJORIE, TRUSTEES
62
A
27
1.00 ac.+
EDWARD C. COPENHAVER, TRUST
EDWARD C. & MARJORIE, TRUSTEES
62
A
28
76.00 ac.+
DEOMS, GARY C. & DIANNE Y.
74
A
10E
3.13 ac.
DICK, ROBERT M. & ROSE ZELLA
60
A
32
93.25 ac
DICK, ROBERT M. & ROSE ZELLA
60
A
33
93.25 ac.
Page 5
1995 Ag District
EWING, ARTHUR L. &ANNA M.
73
A
26
12.00 ac.
FAWCETT, ROBERT
60
A
73B
16.00 ac.+
FAWCETT, THOMAS L.
60
A
73
115.00 ac.
FAWCETT, THOMAS L.
60
A
77
9.75 ac.
FAWCETT, THOMAS L.
61
A
45
35.99 ac.+
FOUT, JOHN F & PHYLLIS
72
A
36
71.00 ac.
FOUT, N B &- ETHEL
C/O JOHN F FOUT
72
A
38
36.00 ac.
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
61
A
21
34.00 ac.
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
61
A
23
154.75 ac.
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
61
A
24
20.16 ac.
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
61
A
25
5.50 ac.
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
73
A
63
240.17 ac.
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
52
A
300
305.43 ac.
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
73
A
10
194.50 ac.
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
73
A
12
2.64 ac.+
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
73
A
16
135.29 ac.
FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC.
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
73
A
17
160.00 ac.
GARRETT, JAMES F
84
A
16
104.00 ac.
GARRETT, JAMES H ET ALS
90
A
10
140.00 ac,
GARRETT, JAMES H ET ALS
90
A
11
67.00 ac.
GLENDOBBIN ORCHARDS
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
51
A
108
102.00 ac+
GLENDOBBIN ORCHARDS
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
51
3
12
3.06 ac.+
GLENDOBBIN ORCHARD
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
51
28
6A
7.41 ac.+
GLENDOBBIN ORCHARD
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
51
28
7A
6.29 ac.+
GLOVER, CHARLES LESTER JR
74 A
10
1.18 ac.
HUEY, JAMES Q. JR. S& JO ELLEN
73 A 103
32.40 ac
Page 6
1995 Ag District
HUFFMAN, WINSTON D.
83
A
100
11.00 ac.+
KERNS, FRED M. S& MARY IC
61
A
77
36.22 ac.
LEWIS, PAMELA W.
74
A
16
1.00 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
do C MESSICK
61
A
132
78.97
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C MESSICI<
61
A
133
13.25 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C. MESSICI<
62
A
35
130.84
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C. MESSICI<
62
A
40
250.00 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C MESSICI<
74
A
5
20.00 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C MESSICK
74
A
47
91.00 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C MESSICK
74
A
48
14.25 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C MESSICK
74
A
51
31.86 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C MESSICK
74
A
52
44.00 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
do C MESSICK
74
A
53
22.50 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C MESSICK
74
A
65
275.05 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
c/o C MESSICK
74
A
66
4.95 ac.
LONG CREEK FARM, INC.
do C MESSICK
74
A
75A
20.50 ac.
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
96
192.08 ac.+
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
106
42.00 ac.
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
107
19.00 ac.
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
116
49.00 ac.
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
117
29.00 ac.+
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
118
77.50 ac.
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
119
16.00 ac.
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
120
10.94 ac.
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
126
11.00 ac.
MARKER MILLER ORCHARDS, L P
61
A
126A
4.81 ac.
MARKER, J. RALPH EST.
61
A
127
170.50 ac.
Page 7
MCDONALD, ALBERT A.
MCDONALD, ALBERT A. & SYLVIA
MCDONALD, GARY W & SHARON RAE
MCDONALD, GARY W & SHARON RAE
MCDONALD, GARY W & SHARON RAE
MCDONALD, GARY W & SHARON RAE
MCDONALD, GARY W & SHARON RAE
MCDONALD, JOAN D
MCDONALD, RICHARD S. SR & LINDA C
MCDONALD, ROY E. & LORETTA G.
MCDONALD, ROY E. & LORETTA G.
MCDONALD, S. J. & GLADYS
C/O CONSTANCE MEAGHER
MCDONALD, S. J. & GLADYS
C/O CONSTANCE MEAGHER
MCDONALD, S J & GLADYS K
C/O CONSTANCE MEAGHER
MCDONALD, S J
C/O CONSTANCE MEAGHER
MCDONALD, SAMUEL F.
MERRINER, JAMES H., JR
MERRINER, JAMES H., JR.
MERRINER, JAMES MATTHEW
MILLER, WALTER & MARGARET E
MUSSER, JAMES R. & EUNICE B.
MUSSER, JAMES R. & EUNICE B.
NELSON, LAWRENCE B. &
NEWLIN, GEORGE W. & SARAH M.
NICHOLS, HAROLD G & ELIZABETH H
NICHOLS, HAROLD G & ELIZABETH H
O'NEAL, JERRY P. & MARY
Page 8
1995 Ag District
84
A
1
217.00 ac.
72
A
53
197.00 ac.
83
A
96
31.43 ac.
83
A
98A
6.80 ac.
83
A
99
66.10 ac.
83
A
100A
202.00 ac.+
84
A
34
89.05 ac.+
84
A
46
148.95
83
A
97
10.80 ac.
84
A
48
210.43 ac.
84
A
49B
25.70 ac. +
72
A
82
12.00 ac.+
72
A
83
.50 ac. +
84
A
2
66.50 ac.
84
A
6
60.00 ac.+
72
A
87
12.50 ac.
60
A
52
129.99 ac
60
A
64
21.00 ac.
51
A
42
3 0.5 7 ac.
73
A
11
5.00 ac.
73
A
89
1.00 ac +
73
A
93
1.50 ac.
61
A
31
52.32 ac.
73
A
33
20.70 ac.
73
A
97
89.63 ac.
84
A
17
105.50 ac.
85
A
28
.60 ac.
1995 Ag District
PENCE, JAMES & NANCY
73
A
91A
2.00 ac.
PFAHL, MARGARET B. ET ALS
C/O RALPH BAUSERMAN
85
A
3
175.00 ac.
R & T PACKING CORPORATION
73
A
88
78.00 ac.
R & T PACIING CORPORATION
74
A
3
191.17 ac.
R & T PACIING CORPORATION
74
A
4
336.50 ac.
R &T PACIING CORPORATION
74
A
4A
5.00 ac.+
REDMILES, DONALD R.
84
A
41
6.00 ac.
RICHARD, MARY ALICE
72
A
10
9.00 ac.+
RICHARD, MARY ALICE
72
A
61A
5.00 ac.+
RICHARD, MARY ALICE
72
A
61B
6.51 ac.+
RICHARD, MARY ALICE
72
A
63
1.16 ac.
RICHARD, MARY ALICE
72
A
64
69.83 ac.
RICHARD, MARY ALICE
73
A
36
64.16 ac. +
RICHARD, MARY ALICE
84
A
5
72.50 ac.+
RICHARD, LEONARD E.
72
A
30
72.50
RIDINGS, L. V.
72
A
3
33.50 ac.
RIDINGS, L. V.
73
A
24
10.00 ac.
RIDINGS, L. V.
73
A
27
4.00 ac.
RIDINGS, L. V.
73
A
28
4.00 ac.
RIDINGS, L. V.
84
A
44
51.95 ac.
RIDINGS, RUBY
73
A
29
50.00 ac.
RIDINGS, RUBY
73
A
94
12.35 ac.
RINKER, DUDLEY H.
73
A
30
4.83 ac.
RINKER, DUDLEY H.
73
A
30E
1.01 ac.
RINKER, DUDLEY H.
73
A
301
6.43 ac.
RINKER PROPERTIES, L.C.
73
A
95
22.50 ac.
RINKER PROPERTIES, L.C.
73
A
99
46.92 ac.+
RINKER PROPERTIES, L.C.
73
A
99A
38.58 ac.+
RINKER PROPERTIES, L.C.
73
A
102
52.80 ac.
RUBLE ENTERPRISES, LP
62
A
29
233.86 ac.
RUDOLPH, ELLA JACKSON & JOHN T
62
A
53
88.87 ac.
SECRI ST, MARK R & MARY ROSE
60
A
27
42.03 ac.
+ = New Additions
Page 9
1995 Ag District
SNAPP BROTHERS
61
A
41
42.00 ac.
SNAPP BROTHERS
61
A
42
42.00 ac.
SNAPP, ALFRED, JR.
73
A
13
96.00 ac.+
SNAPP, ALFRED, JR.
84
A
40
69.30 ac.+
SNAPP, ALFRED, JR.
84
A
40A
46.00 ac.+
SNAPP, CARLTON R.
61
A
48
28.00 ac.
SNAPP, CARLTON R.
61
A
49
1.00 ac.
SNAPP, H. TILDEN & CHRISTINE
60
A
79
134.25 ac.+
SNAPP, H. TILDEN &CHRISTINE
60
A
80
27.00 ac.+
SNAPP, OREN D.
61
A
'10
24.34 ac.+
SNAPP, OREN D. ET AL
60
A
69
200.00 ac.+
SNAPP, OREN D. ET AL
61
A
13
164.09 ac.+
SNAPP, OREN D. ET AL
73
A
1
9.04 ac+
SNAPP, R. ROLAND
61
A
7
109.51 ac.
SNAPP, R. ROLAND
61
A
8
5.00 ac.
SNAPP, R. ROLAND
61
A
8A
5.00 ac.
SNAPP, R. ROLAND
61
A
9
97.00 ac.
SNAPP, R. ROLAND
61
A
40
27.00 ac.
SNAPP, R. ROLAND
61
A
44
1.00 ac.
SNAPP, R. ROLAND
72
A
12
89.75 ac.
SNAPP WAYNE
61
A
43
7.50 ac.
SNAPP, WAYNE
61
A
43A
37.50 ac.
SNAPP WAYNE
61
A
43B
10.00 ac.
STAPLES, FRANCES
74
A
20
162.00 ac.
STOUT, JEFFREY T.
72
A
29L
15.85 ac.+
STROSNIDER, TILDEN E.
84
A
47
140.75 ac
SWACK, JOSEPH J. & PHYLLIS S.
73
A
30H
6.15 ac.
SWING, KATHLEEN
72
A
44
6.75 ac.
SWING, KATHLEEN
72
A
45
5.25 ac.+
SWING, KATHLEEN
72
A
46
128.00 ac.
SWING, KATHLEEN S.
73
A
9
19.50 ac.
TRIPLE S
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
60 A
75
39.03 ac.+
Page 10
1995 Ag District
TRIPLE S
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
62
A
72G
.85 ac. +
TRIPLE S
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
63
A
1
198.51 ac.+
TRIPLE S
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
63
A
1D
63.91 ac.+
V P I& STATE UNIVERSITY
73
A
3
120.16 ac.
WALSH, SUZANNE S.
73
A
30D
17.99 ac.
WESTERNVIEW
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
84
A
10
32.68 ac.
WESTERNVIEW, INC.
C/O ROBERT SOLENBERGER
84
6
21
42.71
WHITNEY, PHILIP B.
74
A
14
3.00 ac.
WHITNEY, PHILIP B.
74
A
15
34.77 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
61
A
30
44.00 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
61
A
34
14.00 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
61
A
37
11.60 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
61
A
128
137.50 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
61
A
129
48.00 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
61
A
130
30.00 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
61
A
131
7.75 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
73
A
21
271.00 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
73
A
31
84.85 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
73
A
66
5.00 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
73
A
67
29333 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
73
A
73
45.54 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
84
A
29
106.46 ac.
WOODBINE FARMS, INC.
84
A
50
197.00 ac.
WRIGHT, VERNON
61
A
22
89.48 ac.+
+ = New Additons
Page 11
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II �,
RE: Amendment To The RP Residential Performance District
DATE: April 21, 1995
During the April 5, 1995 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, staff held an informal
discussion regarding the potential for permitting veterinary offices, clinics, or hospitals with a
conditional use permit in the RP District. The essence of that discussion was to determine if the
use was desirable, and if performance standards were warranted.
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. The Planning
commission also felt that reasonable performance standards could not be created across the board
for the RP District due to the characteristics associated with each development. Therefore, staff
was directed to advertise the use for inclusion in the RP District under the conditional use permit
section of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed amendment to the RP District is included with this memorandum. Staff asks that
the Planning Commission consider the proposed amendment and forward a recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors.
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
AMENDMENT
Approval Dates:
PLANNING COMMISSION May 3, 1995
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS May 24, 1995
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 165, ZONING
WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code,
Article VI, RP Residential Performance District, Section 165-60, Conditional Uses to allow
veterinary offices, clinics, or hospitals was referred to the Planning Commission on April 5,
1995, and May 3, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on
May 3, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on
May 24, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance
to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article VI, Residential
Performance District, Section 165-60, Conditional Uses is amended as described on the
following attachment:
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.
This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Passed this 24th day of May, 1995 by the following recorded vote:
Richard G. Dick
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.
Jimmie K. Ellin ton
James J. Longerbeam
Robert M. Sager
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703J678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II
RE: Proposed IA Interstate Area Overlay District
DATE: April 24, 1995
During the April 19, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested the opportunity to have
an informal discussion regarding the above referenced item. The purpose of the informal
discussion was to review the draft IA Overlay District, discuss the DRRS comments that were
incorporated into the draft, and to determine the appropriate procedure to designate the initial
properties that would be included in the IA District.
The Planning Commission felt that the overall concept of the IA Overlay District was
appropriate, and that staff should incorporate the DRRS comments into the final draft for public
hearing. The Planning Commission also felt that defined boundaries should be created that
depicted the properties that would be included in the IA Overlay District in its initial state.
Included under this agenda item is the proposed IA Interstate Area Overlay District for Frederick
County. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider the amendments and forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
AMENDMENT
Approvals:
PLANNING COMMISSION May 3, 1995
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mav 10. 1995
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 165, ZONING
WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code,
to create a new Article, IA Interstate Area Overlay District, was referred to the Planning
Commission on April 19, 1995, and May 3, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on
May 3, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on
May 10, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance
to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to create a new
Article as described on the following attachment:
ARTICLE XVI
IA INTERSTATE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
165-116 Intent
The IA Interstate Area Overlay District is intended to provide commercial businesses within an
identified area the ability to utilize business signs that are in excess of the limits specified in
Section 165-30 of this Chapter. This flexibility is provided to inform the traveling public of
business service opportunities at specific interstate interchange areas. The standards within this
Article are designed to allow for additional visibility for commercial businesses, while
minimizing negative impacts to residential properties that are adjacent to, or within the proximity
of the overlay district. Established boundaries are based on reasonable sight distances and
policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and are intended to designate each interstate
interchange area and provide guidance for considering subsequent properties.
165-117. District Boundaries
Properties that are included within the Interstate Area Overlay District shall be delineated on the
Official Zoning Map for Frederick County. This map shall be maintained and updated by the
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development.
165-118. Establishment of Districts
A. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors may apply the Interstate Area Overlay
District to properties within the proximity of interstate interchange areas upon concluding
that:
The property is in conformance with the idealized interchange development
pattern recommendation of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use of the property is consistent with the specified uses within this
Article.
3. The proposed business sign will not have an adverse impact on adjoining
properties whose primary use is residential.
4. The property has met the requirements of Article I1 of this Chapter, as well as the
requirements of Title 15. 1, Section 491(8) of the Code of Virginia 1950, as
amended.
B. The Interstate Area Overlay District shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other
zoning districts where it is applied so that any parcel of land within the Interstate Area
Overlay District shall also be within one or more zoning district as specified within this
Chapter. The effect shall be the creation of new zoning districts consisting of the
regulations and requirements of both the underlying zoning district(s) and the Interstate
Area Overlay District.
165-119. Qualifying Criteria
A. The following uses shall be authorized to erect a commercial business sign that is of a
greater height and size than is permitted in the underlying zoning district, provided that
the business sign complies with the requirements of Section 165-120 of this Article, and
that the use is located on property that is delineated on the Official Zoning Map as being
part of the Interstate Area Overlay District:
USE
SIC Code
Automotive Dealers & Gasoline Service Stations 55
Eating & Drinking Establishments
Hotel & Lodging Establishments
IN
70
B. The uses specified under Section 165-119A that are authorized on property through the
issuance of a conditional use permit in the RA, Rural Areas District may be entitled to
erect a commercial business sign that is of a greater height and size than is permitted in
the underlying zoning district, provided that the property has met the requirements of
Article III of this Chapter, the business sign complies with the requirements of Section
165-120 of this Article, and the use is located on property that is delineated on the
Official Zoning Map as being part of the Interstate Area Overlay District.
165-120. District. Regulations
A. Permitted Signs.
Freestanding commercial business signs.
2. Signs permitted in the underlying zoning district(s).
B. Prohibited Signs
L Off -premise business signs.
2. Signs prohibited in the underlying zoning districts(s).
C. Number of Freestanding Commercial Business Signs.
1. Any permitted primary use in the Interstate Area Overlay District may erect one
business sign that complies with the requirements set forth in this Article, and one
business sign that does not exceed six (6) feet in height and fifty (50) square feet
in area.
2. When two or more primary uses are located on the same parcel, each use may
erect one business sign that complies with the requireirrents set forth in this
Article, and one business sign that does not exceed six (6) feet in height and fifty
(50) square feet in area.
D. Setback Requirements
1. The message portion of all freestanding commercial business signs shall be
setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from any lot Iine or property boundary line.
2. When any freestanding commercial business sign which exceeds the height
requirement of the underlying zoning district(s) is located on property that adjoins
or is across a right-of-way from property that is in the RP Residential
Performance District, or the HE Higher Education District, the setback shall be
the normal setback plus one (1) foot for every foot over the maximum height of
the underlying zoning district(s).
3. When any freestanding commercial business sign which exceeds the height
requirement of the underlying zoning district(s) is located on property that adjoins
or is across a right-of-way from property whose primary use is residential, the
setback shall be the normal setback plus one (1) foot for every foot over the
maximum height of the underlying zoning district(s).
4. The Planning Commission may waive a portion of the setback described in
Section 165-1451)(2) or Section 165-145D(3) if the developer can not meet the
setback requirement due to the size or shape of the parcel.
3
E. Spacing Requirements
The spacing requirements for any sign in the Interstate Area Overlay District or the
underlying zoning district(s) shall comply with the requirements in Section 165-30(F) of
this Chapter.
F. Size Requirements
1. The message portion of any freestanding commercial business sign that meets the
requirements of this Article shall not exceed a total of two hundred (200) square
feet in area, and shall not be located less than twenty-five (25) feet in height from
the base of the sign support pole.
2. More than one freestanding commercial business sign shall be allowed to share
a common support pole, provided that the business signs comply with the
requirements of Section 165-119 and Section 165-120 of this Article, and that the
uses are located on properties that are delineated on the Official Zoning Map as
being part of the Interstate Area Overlay District. The message portion of
freestanding commercial business signs that meet this requirement shall not
exceed a total of four hundred (400) square feet in area, and shall not be located
less than twenty-five (25) feet in height from the base of the sign support pole.
G. Illumination
1. Neither the direct nor retlected light from any illuminated business sign shall
create glare into or upon any building or property other than the building or
property to which the business sign is permitted to be located.
2. Neither the direct nor reflected light from any illuminated business sign shall
create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares.
H. Maintenance and Permits
1. All signs that are erected in the interstate Area Overlay District shall meet the
maintenance and permit requirements as specified in Section 165-30(I) and
Section 165-30(J) of this Chapter.
2. Appropriate easements shall be secured by any property owner that desires to
erect a business sign in conformance with the requirements of this Article prior
to the issuance of a sign permit to insure that required maintenance does not have
an adverse impact on adjoining properties.
4
I. Permitted Heights for Freestanding Commercial Business Signs.
INTERSTATE 81 OVERLAY DISTRICT SIGN ELEVATIONS
Exit Number
Maximum Business Sign Height
302
750 feet above mean sea level
307
790 feet above mean sea level
310
795 feet above mean sea level
313
795 feet above mean sea level
315
740 feet above mean sea level
317
805 feet above mean sea level
321
690 feet above mean sea level
323
700 feet above mean sea level
This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Passed this 10th day of May, 1995 by the following recorded vote:
Richard G. Dick
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Jimmie K. Ellington
James J. Longerbeam
Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. Robert M. Sager
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II
RE: Proposed Amendments To Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations,
Section 165-30, Signs.
DATE: April 21, 1995
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) and the Planning Commission
have discussed the proposed sign ordinance amendments as recommended by the Chamber of
Commerce Corridor Appearance Task Force (CATF). As you know, the CATF created a report
that provides recommendations to assist with the long term appearance of roadway corridors
leading into the community. Staff believes that the proposed amendments need to reflect the
community as a whole to ensure consistency in our commercial and industrial areas, and to
mitigate problems when less significant or future commercial and industrial corridors are
developed throughout the county.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments during their regular meeting of
November 16, 1994. During that discussion, the concerns that were expressed pertained to 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. These
issues were discussed with the DRRS during their February 1995 meeting. The DRRS 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. 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.
The proposed amendments to the current sign regulations are included with this memorandum.
Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider these amendments and forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
AMENDMENT
Approvals:
PLANNING COMMISSION May 3. 1995
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mav 10. 1995
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 165, ZONING
WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code,
Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-30, Signs, was referred to the Planning
Commission on November 16, 1994, and May 3, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on
May 3, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on
May 10, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance
to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary
Use Regulations, Section 165-30, Signs, is amended as described on the following attachment:
Section 165-30 Signs
F. Minimum Spacing For Freestanding Business Signs
The minimum distance between freestanding business signs shall be one hundred (100) feet. The
Zoning Administrator may allow two (2) signs to be separated by less than one hundred (100)
feet to permit the signs to share a similar location. In such cases, the two (2) signs shall be
separated from other signs by a distance totaling one hundred (100) feet plus the distance by
which the separation of the signs was reduced.
G. Height
Freestanding business signs shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height in any zoning
district, except as permitted in the IA Overlay District. All other signs shall not exceed ten (10)
feet in height. Freestanding business entrance signs shall not exceed four (4) feet in height.
H. Size
(1) No freestanding business sign shall exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in area, except as
permitted in the IA Overlay District. No freestanding business sign shall exceed fifty (50) square
feet in the B 1 Neighborhood Business District.
(2) No cottage occupation sign shall exceed four (4) square feet in area.
(3) The permitted size of a business sign that is attached to the side of a building in any zoning
district shall be a dimension that does not exceed one (1) square foot per one (1) linear foot of
horizontal building frontage and does not exceed a total of two hundred (200) square feet.
(4) No freestanding business entrance sign or directional sign shall exceed four (4) square feet
in area.
I. Design
All freestanding business signs should conform to the overall design concept of the building in
which the sign represents. Business signs that are mounted on a building should conform to the
architecture of that building.
J. Maintenance and Removal
(1) All signs shall maintain a neat and orderly appearance. Signs that are damaged, structurally
unsound, or poorly maintained shall be repaired within thirty (30) days after receiving written
notification from the Zoning Administrator. Any sign that is not adequately repaired within.
thirty (30) days shall be removed by the property owner.
(2) Off -premise business or directional signs that advertise a business which ceases to exist shall
be removed by the property owner within thirty (30) days after receiving written notification
from the Zoning Administrator.
(3) Sign removal shall include the message portion of the sign and any supporting structural
component.
K. Sign Permits
(1) A sign permit shall be obtained from the Frederick County Building Official prior to the
construction, reconstruction, alteration, or repair of any sign.
(2) Commemorative plaques and historical markers shall be exempt from obtaining sign permits.
This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage.
Passed this 10th day of May, 1995 by the following recorded vote:
Richard G. Dick
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.
Jimmie K. Ellington
James J. Longerbeam
Robert M. Sager
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Riley, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
COUNTY of' FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II `klj
RE: Revised Regency Lakes Estates Master Development Plan
DATE: April 21, 199
Representatives of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates met with the Planning Commission on April
19, 1995 to informally discuss revisions to the above referenced master development plan. The
purpose of that discussion was to determine if there were specific concerns with the overall
concept of the proposed revision. The Planning Commission did not voice any concerns, and
agreed that the revised transportation network plan was superior to the original plan.
Staff has provided the Planning Commission with a detailed report that describes the project
history and the proposed improvements. Required master development plan information that is
not discussed in the staff report or included on the proposed plan will be addressed during the
preparation of the final plan. Staff will work with the applicant to insure that reasonable steps
may be taken to continue construction while the final plans are being finalized.
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
PC REVIEW: 05/03/95
BOS REVIEW:
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #003-95
REVISED REGENCY LAKES ESTATE
LOCATION: The property is located on the north side of Berryville Pike (Route 7
East), on Regency Lakes Drive.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-27 (Oakwood Land Development Company - owner)
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned MH1 (Mobile Home Community)
Land Use: Mobile Home Park & Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance) - Vacant (Caleb Heights)
South: B2 (Business General) - Commercial and Vacant
RA (Rural Areas) - Residential
East: RP (Residential Performance) - Residential and Nursing Home
RA (Rural Areas) - Residential
B2 (Business General) - Commercial and Day Care
B3 (Industrial Transition) - Vacant
West: RP (Residential Performance) - Vacant (Caleb Heights)
B2 (Business General) - Vacant
PROPOSED USE: Single wide and double wide mobile homes
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No overall objections to the revised master
development plan. Prior to making any final comments on future phases of the
project we will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations, and traffic
flow data for review. As proposed it appears sections of the Regency Lakes Drive
right-of-way will pass through portions of both lakes. Is the water elevation in the
lakes to be lowered and/or portions filled to accommodate the roadway?
Page 2
Regency Lakes Estates
Master Development Plan #003-95
Sanitation Authority: No Comment.
County Engineer: The master development plan for the Regency Lakes Estates is
approved by the Engineering Department. A detailed review of section D will be
made at the time of resubdivision submittal.
Fire Marshal: The final site plan needs to insure that fire hydrants are located no
more than 400 feet apart. It is preferred that the location of these hydrants be at the
corner of intersecting streets and not at the end of cul-de-sacs. The Department of
Emergency Services approves the overall concept of the revised -master development
plan, and reserves the right to provide final approval of the Regency Lakes Estates
development based on the detailed site plan drawings for all remaining sections.
Parks & Recreation Dept: No comment. Revised master development plan has no
impact on required recreational amenities.
Planning & Zoning
Project History - Frederick County determined that a master development plan
would be desirable for Regency Lakes Estates due to the different housing types that
would be permitted under the RP and MHl zoning classifications, as well as the
overall scale of the project. The original master development plan for this project
was approved by the Planning Department on July 8, 1.986. This master development
plan called for the development of 72 single family detached lots on 52 acres that
was zoned RP, and 598 mobile home units on 151 acres. This created an overall
gross density of 1.38 units per acre in the RP section, and 396 units per acre in the
MH1 section.
Notable improvements required under the original master development plan included
the creation of a loop road around the lakes, the construction of a dam to support
this road, the provision of a 60 foot right-of-way that would connect the loop road
to the Winchester mall property located to the south, the establishment of a
substantial recreational area, and the provision of buffers along the northern,
southern, and western property lines. To date, Regency Lakes Drive has been
constructed to serve all developed sections, the dam is in place, and all recreational
amenities have been provided including a club house, a swimming pool, tennis courts,
and ballfields.
Page 3
Regency Lakes Estates
Master Development Plan #003-95
Proposed Revisions - The proposed master development plan has been revised to
realign and relocate proposed roadways, and to redesign one of the buffers that was
required on the original plan. The proposed revisions are as follows:
1) Overall Gross Density - The revised master development plan proposes to provide
a total of 575 mobile home units on 168 acres. This creates an overall gross density
of 3.41 units per acre. This density is less than the original permitted density of 3.96
units per acre. This is due in part to an increase in the "lot" area needed for double
wide units.
2) Regency Lakes Drive Realignment - The loop road is proposed to be realigned
to bring it closer to the lake. This new alignment will require approval by VDOT
and will enable all roads in the single family section to be accepted into the state
secondary road system for maintenance once the new alignment has been developed
to a minimum standard suitable to VDOT.
3) Relocated Collector Roads - The approved 60 foot right-of-way connection with
the Winchester Mall property has been relocated to provide a major collector road
that will follow the western property for the purpose of providing a future connection
with the Caleb Heights property. A connection has been provided to this major
collector road to provide access for the residents of Regency Lakes Estates. A minor
collector road has been proposed that will provide a connection between Regency
Lakes Drive and the Caleb Heights property to the north.
The relocation of the major collector road and the connection served by the minor
collector road meet the intent of the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan. These roads will be needed if the Caleb Heights property is
developed; however, they may not be desirable if the property becomes a battlefield
park. Statements need to be included on the plan that explain that these collector
roads will be required when determined by Frederick County. This will assist the
developer in the event that Frederick County determines that the roads are not
needed.
4) Buffers - The buffer along the southern property line reflects the buffer shown on
the original plan. The buffer along the western property line has been modified to
accommodate the proposed major collector road. This buffer should reflect the
requirements for a road efficiency buffer. Details of how this will be accomplished
need to be provided on the final master development plan. The original plan called
for a buffer along the northern property line which is not indicated on this master
deve'.opment plan. This buffer needs to remain as proposed to insure proper
separation from the Caleb Heights property.
Page 4
Regency Lakes Estates
Master Development Plan #003-95
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval, provided that the applicant address all
comments and concerns of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and
all review agencies.
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Frederick County
Virginia
Date: March 27, 1995 Application #-I )U 3 `q -S
OWNERS NAME: Oakwood Land Development Company
PO Box 77013
Greensboro NC 27417-7013 1.
(Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest)
AGENT: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Inc.
Address: 200 N. Cameron St Winchester Va 22601
Phone Number: (703) 667-2139
DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: same
Contact Name:
Stephen M. Gvurisin
!'•.
1
Stephen M. Gvurisin
PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHECKLIST
The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in
insuring that all required information is provided and to insure
that all information is available to allow review by the County.
This forth must be completed by the applicant and submitted with
the master development plan. All required items must be provided
on the master development plan.
Background Information:
1. Development's name: Regency Lakes Estates
2. Location of property: North of Rt. 7 East at Regency Drive
3. Total area of property: 76.8 Acres ±
4. Property ID # (14 Digit): 86-A-20
5. Property zoning and present use: MH -1
6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: B-2 and RP
Vacant residential and vacant commercial and residential
7. Proposed Uses: Manfactured homes - single family
8. Magisterial District: Stonewall
9. Is this.__an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original Amended
General Information:
1. Have the following items been included?
North arrow
Yes_X_
% Disturbed
No
Scale
Yes_X_
No
Legend
Yes
0
No X_
Boundary Survey
Yes
p
No_X_
Total Area
Yes_X_
0
No
Topography
Yes
0
No_X_
Project Title
Yes_X_
0
No
Preparation and Revision Date
Yes_X_
No
Applicant Name
Yes_X_
No
2. Number of phases proposed? 2 - Sections E and F
3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan?
Yes_X_ No
4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated?
Yes_X_ No
5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project
and all public roads within 2,000 feet.
Yes_X_ No
6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes_X_ No
7. Are environmental features clearly shown?
Yes No X *
8. Describe the following environmental features:*
Total Area
% Disturbed
Area in
Open Space
Floodplains
0
0
0
Lakes and ponds
_ 0 —
p
0
Natural retention
areas 0
0
0
Steep slopes (150
or more)_0
0
0
Woodlands
0
0
0
4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes No_X_*
5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed?
NONE REQUIRED - AS BUILT *
6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No_X
7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No_X
8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required?
Yes No_X
9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by
the plan with profiles or examples? Yes No_X
* All permitted uses, dimensional requirements, common areas,
streets, off-street parking, and sewer and water facilities re-
main as approved or as built.
jr
n
9. Are the following shown on the master development plan?*
Street layout Yes—X— No
Entrances Yes—X— No
Parking areas Yes No X
Utilities (mains) Yes No—X-
10.
oX
10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided?
Yes No X *
11. Have all historical structures been identified?
Yes X No
Residential Uses
If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP,
(Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following
items should be completed.
1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed?
Manfactured Homes - Single family homes
2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in
each phase:
Open space acreage Yes–X– No
Acreage in each housing type Yes–X– No
Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes No_X_
Total acreage Yes–X– No
Number of dwellings of each type Yes–X– No
3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common
open space? 260
PC REVIEW: 05/03/95
BOS REVIEW:
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 002-95
COVENTRY COURTS REVISED
LOCATION: The property is located west and adjacent to Greenwood Road (Route 656),
approximately 2000' north of the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route
656) and Senseny Road (Route 657).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-185
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Land Use:
Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING &. USE: Zoninu: RA (Rural Areas) and RP
(Residential Performance) Land Use: residential and vacant
PROPOSED USE: Single family detached homes
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached comments dated August 18, 1994.
Sanitation Authority: Coventry Courts submitted plans through Dove cit Associates
in March, 1991 and was approved in July, 1991. First review of Clifford's plans needs
to be corrected and resubmitted (9 items).
County Engineer: See attached comments dated July 6, 1994.
Fire Marshal: 1) Relocate hydrant to corner of Farmington Boulevard and Harold
Court. 2) Post temporary street signs and lot numbers or addresses when
construction begins. 3) Burning of construction debris on site is not permitted.
Page 2
Coventry Courts
Master Development Plan #002-95
Planning & Zoning:
History There is an approved Master Development Plan for this site which indicates
38 single family cluster lots. The approved plan also indicated a different road layout
which had two connections to Greenwood Road. The revised plan contains 34 single
family, detached, urban lots which have a minimum square footage of 12,000.
Plan Design and Content In the initial review of the revised MDP staff had a
number of questions concerning the information supplied on the plan. Most of these
concerns were addressed with the submission of an update to the plan. Some of our
concerns remain however. These concerns are;
The initial revised plan indicated that there was no woodland present on the site and
that there would be no disturbance of woodland. Staff's visit to the property revealed
that the western portion of the property is in fact wooded. Much of the area that is
shown on the plan as steep slopes also contains woodland. The revised plan now
indicates woodland, however, staff still questions the accuracy of the depiction.
The first submission of the plan indicated that 25% (1.23 acres) of the steep slopes
on the site would be disturbed. Staff questioned the area depicted on the plan as
disturbed. Along its western end, the plan showed only the area within the right-of-
way of Farmington Boulevard as being disturbed. The locations where sewer lines
run through the steep slope areas were not shown as disturbed on the plan. These
areas are now shown as disturbed, however there has been no increase to the
disturbed acreage tabulation.
The staff also has some concern about the through connection to the Abrams Point
tract being a phase by itself, and the Final stage of the development. Staff feels that
the County should seek some assurance that this phase will in fact be completed.
This could be accomplished through some form of bonding.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval, contingent upon the following;
1. The applicant supplying information which satisfactorily demonstrates the accuracy
of the location, and amount of disturbance to, environmental features, and that the
amount of the disturbance does not exceed permitted limits, and;
2. That a note is added to the plan indicating what sort of assurance will be provided
to guarantee completion of phase IV and Farmington Boulevard.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRCIE I,��;
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONY~��
P. 0. BOX 278
RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824
COMMISSIONER
August 18, 1994
Mr. Steve Gyurisin
C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Steve:
WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TELE(703)984-5600
FAX (703)984-5607
Ref: Coventry Courts
Route 656
Frederick County
I am writing in response to your letter of August 6, 1994 concerning the referenced
project.
In addition to our earlier comments (copy attached) relative to the Farmington Boulevard
concept, I offer the following design related comments:
1. Due to the extremely steep slopes on the property, development of the streets and
providing adequate access to several of the lots could prove difficult. Joint private
entrances and guardrail may need to be considered at several locations.
2. Extensive storm sewer systems may be needed in order to fill and develop several
lots, again due to steep slopes.
3. The streets will need to be designed and constructed to accommodate ADA
requirements.
Before making final comments we will require a complete set of site plans, drainage
calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual, Fourth Edition for
review. Prior to construction on the State's right-of-way the developer will need to apply
to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
W. H. Bushman, Trans. Resident Engr.
By: R. B. Childress, Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr.
RBC/rf
Enclosure
xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff, Mr. R. W. Watkins
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
COUNTY of FREDFRICK
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor
703/665-5643
July 6, 1994
Mr. Thomas W. Price
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Preliminary Master Development Plan — COVeV\A-V'( CQlsvJ-(
Dear Tom:
As you are aware, this site was previously master planned and
designed by Dove and Associates for single family dwellings.
During the design and review process, the following issues were
major points of contention:
(1) Stormwater management
(2) Lots with steep slopes
(3) Extension of Farmington Boulevard into Abrams Point
The proposed preliminary master development plan is approved
as submitted. However, we recommend that strong consideration be
given to the above issues prior to the initial design submittal.
I am available to discuss any or all of these issues prior to your
initial design submittal.
Sincerely,
HarveyMStrawsnyder, Jr., P. E.
Director of Public Works
Fax: 703/678-0682 - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22604
REVISED MDP #002-95 PIN: 55-A-185
COVENTRY COURTS
J
b
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Frederick County
Virginia
Date: Application #;j
OWNERS NAME: ELAINE B. LONGERBEAM
Box 528
BQrrvvilla,..Va 22611
Elaine B _Lonaerb_am
(Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest)
APPLICANT/AGENT: Gilbert W Clifford & A , ciat In
c.
Address: 200 N. Cameron St, WinCh2ster, Va 22601
Phone Number: 1703) 667-2139
DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: tame
Contact Name: Tom Price
PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHECKLIST
The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in
insuring that all required information is provided and to insure
that all information is available to allow review by the County.
This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with
the master development plan. All required items must be provided
on the master development plan.
Background Information:
1. Development's name: Coventry Court
2. Location of property: West & AdjacQnt LQ R (Greenwood
Road), approx. 2000' north of Intx. of Rte 656 & 657.
3. Total area of property: 14.52 Acres
4. Property ID #: 55-A-185
5. Property zoning and present use: RP (Vacant)
6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: RP (Residential
and Vacant), RA (Residental & Vacant)
7. Proposed Uses: Sinale Family Detached - Urban
8. Magisterial District: Shawnee
9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original—X. Amended
General Information:
1. Have the following items been included?
North arrow
Yes
X_
No
Scale
Yes—]K–
No
Legend
Yes
0
No
Boundary Survey
Yes—k–
0
No
Total Area
Yes_
X
No
Topography
Yes—k–
1.37 Ac
No
Project Title
Yes—k–
– 0
No
Preparation and Revision Date
Yes_
X
No
Applicant Name
Yes
X_
No
2. Number of phases proposed?"- Three ()
3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan?
Yes–X– No
4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated?
Yes–X– No
5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project
and all public roads within 2,000 feet.
Yes–X– No
6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes–X– No
7. Are environmental features clearly shown?
Yes–X– No
8. Describe the following environmental features:
Total Area
o Disturbed
Area in
Open Space
Floodplains
0
0
0
Lakes and ponds
0
0
0-'
Natural retention
areas 0
p
0
Steep slopes (15a
or more)4.47 Ac
–
1.37 Ac
0.69 Ac
Woodlands
p
– 0
0
9. Are the following shown on the master development plan?
Street layout
Entrances
Parking areas
Utilities (mains)
Yes
No
—X
Yes
No
_X_
Yes
No X
Yes X
No
10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided?
Yes X No
11. Have all historical structures been identified?
Yes -No—X
If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP,
(Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following
items should be completed.
1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed?
Single Family Detached - Urban
2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in
each phase:
Open space acreage
Yes_X
No
Acreage in each housing type
Yes—k—
No
Acreage in streets and right of ways
Yes—k—
No
Total acreage
Yes—k—
No
Number of dwellings of each type
Yes
X
No
3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common
open space? 15%
4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes No—X-
5.
oX
5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed?
None
6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No—X-
7.
oX
7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes—X— No
8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required?
Yes No—X-
9.
oX
9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by
the plan with profiles or examples? Yes—X— No
gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc.
200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601
703-667-2139 9 Fax: 703-665-0493
Coventry Courts
Adjoining Property Owners
Bettie E. Winslow
711 Greenwood Road
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Eugene F. & Barbara L. Grove
340 West Parkins Mill Road
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Greenwood Realty Partnership
P.O. Box 2097
Winchester, Virginia 22604
Elaine B. Longerbeam
P.O. Box 2018
Winchester, Virginia 22604
Jasbo, Inc.
P.O. Box 2598
Winchester, Virginia 22604
Brenda L. Vance
690 Greenwood Road
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Thomas C. Glass
847 Lake St. Clair Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22603
James L. Bowman
P.O. Box 771
Winchester, Virginia 22604
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
703/665-5651
FAX 703/678-0682
m�nto�armum�
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directo
RE: Request for Exemption from Subdivision Ordinance Requirements 144-17, L
and 144-18, A for Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks
DATE: April 24, 1995
Attached is a letter from Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam to Mr. Riley which lays out her position
concerning the proposed Coventry Courts development, and requests direction as to how to
proceed in her appeal for an exemption from the above referenced requirements.
Some Commissioners will recall this property and its history. A final master plan for the
property was approved on June 20, 1991. The original plan showed the connection to the
adjoining Abrams Point property and contained 18 single family lots. The owner is now in
the process of revising the Master Development Plan.
The request of Mrs. Longerbearn is for a variance or exemption from subdivision
requirements as provided for under Section 144-5 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This
section states in part that, "Variations in or exceptions to the provisions of this chapter may
be granted by the Board of Supervisors in cases of unusual situations or when strict
adherence to the general regulations would result in substantial injustice or hardship."
The staffs position is that there is neither an unusual situation or a substantial injustice or
hardship involved in this matter. The fact that the revision to the MDP contains four fewer
lots and eliminates an entrance on Greenwood Read does not, in the staffs opinion, have
any bearing on whether or not the requirement for curb, gutter and sidewalks constitutes
a hardship. As for the through connection to Abrams Point, this connection has been in the
Eastern Road Plan since its conception. The connection was required by the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors and was a component of the original MDP. This is
not a change from the original plan.
107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601
Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604
There have been other Master Development Plans that have been approved then revised
at some point and the subsequent subdivisions required to install curbs, gutters and
sidewalks. The most recent example being the Fieldstone Heights MDP. The original MDP
for this development was approved on February 16, 1985. The revised MDP was approved
by the Board of Supervisors on August 10, 1994. The owners of this tract also fought the
same requirements and finally chose to increase the minimum lot size within the
development to 15,000 square feet so that the requirements for curb, gutter and sidewalks
would not apply. Commission members will also recall a rather lengthy discussion over the
requirement of sidewalks in the Woodside Estates subdivision as well as the Star Fort
subdivision. As Commissioners know, it is not at all uncommon for the developer to object
to the enforcement of these requirements.
It is the staffs' position that the installation of these facilities is not, nor was it intended to
be, negotiable. If the County begins to barter over the enforcement of our subdivision
design standards, we loose credibility. If the County feels that curb, .gutter and sidewalks
should be a trade-off for the County getting other concessions from a developer, then we
should spell out the conditions under which we will be willing to consider this and amend
the ordinance accordingly. Staff feels, however, that there is nothing unique about this
development that would enable the County to simply waive the requirements here, but
continue to apply them elsewhere.
March 27, 1995
Mr. John Riley
Frederick County Administrator
107 North Kent Street
Winchester Virginia 22601
RE: Coventry Court
Dear John:
In reference to the attached letter from Mr. Kris Tierney dated March 14, 1995, the owners of
Coventry Court wish to apply for a variance or exception to the provisions of Chapter 144 -
Subdivision of Land as specified in 1445 Inte reations and_Appeals. '
The owners wish to develop Coventry Court using 12,000 square foot lots without curbs,
gutters or sidewalks as required in §144-17, L and §144-18, A.
The original plan as approved allowed for 38 - 8,000 square foot lots with two entrance
connections onto Greenwood Road and the requested connection of the planned Farmington
Boulevard to the adjoining property. There were no curbs, gutters or sidewalks planned.
Since that time, the owners have increased the lot size to 12,000 square feet, reduced the total
number of lots to 34, eliminated one entrance connection to Greenwood Road and have
provided for a connection via the planned Farmington Boulevard to the adjoining property
to the west.
The changes as noted above, result in a substantial private investment by the owners to
provide a through connection to the adjoining property to the west. This connection
Cconforms with the recently revised Eastern Road Plan as adopted as part of the Frederick
ounty Comprehensive Plan.
The owners believe that strict adherence to the general regulations of providing sidewalks
result in substantial injustice or hardship and now more so since the lots have been reduced
in number.
As always, I will be happy to discuss this matter informally with
inform me of the process and time schedule for processing this
Commission and Board of Supervisers.
Sincerely,
Elaine Longerbea
cc: Mr. James Longerbeam
Mr. Don Hague
Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E.
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin
Mr. Kris Tierney
you or your Board. Please
request with vour Planning